Prisons: Foreign National Offenders
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate, in particular my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for raising this most important issue. I am not sure that I shall be able to answer in detail all the questions that I have rightly been asked in this debate, but my officials will go through the transcript and I will write to everybody to make sure that the questions are properly answered.
Briefly, by way of background, noble Lords will see from the House of Lords report that there is a dip in the numbers and that they have started to climb again since the Covid crisis. I am told that, in effect, the dip is accounted for by various difficulties encountered by the Home Office at the time. They include quite a number of legal challenges. One that went to the Supreme Court was on something then called Section 94B, which operated the principle of “deport first, appeal later”; it was lost and, as a result, 700 cases had to be redone. Then, in 2019, there were legal proceedings that, as noble Lords may remember, challenged a lot of charter flights. In the meantime, the modern slavery law came into effect, which increased the number of modern slavery claims being made by prisoners. So a combination of factors led to that decline even before we had Covid, but Covid then had a further adverse effect.
Since then, we have climbed up again, to nearly 4,000 last year—a 27% increase on the year before. I just say that by way of background. I do not accept the stricture that the Government have been in a position of chaos and incompetence; I think those were the words used. The Government have been doing their best with a very difficult situation.
Against that background, briefly, there are, roughly speaking, about 10,000 or so prisoners who are foreign national offenders. About one-third of those are on remand. We cannot do anything about that, so we are talking about 6,500 people or something of that kind. Of course, there are also foreign nationals in the community —that is the number in prison—but we are doing our level best to improve performance in that respect. As I said, we returned nearly 4,000 FNOs from prison last year.
The Lord Chancellor has talked about the new measures that we are introducing; they include the early removal scheme, with which noble Lords are familiar. Between January and March this year, almost 400 foreign national offenders were removed—a 61% increase over the same period last year. Part of this is also due to the increasing use of prisoner transfer agreements. I shall say a word about that because it has, rightly, cropped up in the debate.
The Albanian agreement came into effect, or was improved, in May 2023 in order to speed up prison transfers, with greater numbers of the most serious offenders to be sent back to Albania. That is continuing but, even in the case of Albanian prisoners, there are still procedural difficulties that cause delays in the process. For example, each transfer has to be approved by the Albanian courts, which must sanction the Albanian authorities’ power to hold the prisoners, as it were, when they arrive back in Albania. It is a lengthy process; indeed, quite apart from prisoner transfer agreements, one is wrestling with some difficult issues in physically deporting a foreign national offender. Often, there will be very late appeals and all kinds of claims raised. In many cases, there will be absolutely no documentation, so you do not even know what country they come from; you then cannot prove where to send them or prove to the receiving state that they are indeed nationals of that state. These kinds of difficulties arise, quite apart from the physical problems of having an aircraft, escorting people and all those kinds of difficulties.
One should not underestimate the operational problems here but the Government are determinedly working on them. A better process has been introduced for dealing with foreign national offenders. There is a new task force across the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and we have recruited 400 additional case workers to prioritise these cases; they have been in place since last month and will streamline the end-to-end process. So the Government are tackling the problem in general terms.
With that broad background, I will see whether I can deal with at least some of the questions I was asked. I will write to noble Lords on the problem of derogations from the convention, which was one of the points raised on the ECHR.
I think the problem with Jamaica has been the difficulty of reaching a political agreement with the Jamaican Government—I think that that is the case, but I will confirm it in writing. The Albanian example is working quite well. We have agreements with many other countries, but they are not always effective, because prison conditions in other countries are not very satisfactory. Sometimes, the agreement is to enable British prisoners in the foreign prison to come back—a recent example was from the Philippines—rather than for us to send people there, so it is a complicated area.
I do not think I can comment on the specific case of Abdul Ezedi in a debate such as this.
We will work very hard to implement the recommendations of the chief inspector’s report. Points about that were well made. It is another aspect where there can be improvement, but, as I said, we are well up—I gave the figure of 61%—on the equivalent period last year in our success in deporting foreign nationals.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Incidentally, going back to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I once visited the San Miguel prison in Santiago, Chile, with the fabulous penal reform campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. The month before, 81 inmates died in a fire. It was the grimmest prison I have ever been to, but talking about prisons we have known is by the by.
I will press the Minister on the issue of the chief inspector’s report. He know that one of the key issues raised was the routine and repetitive use of manually accessed spreadsheets. There was no IT system that was trustworthy, to the extent that virtually any management data could be easily accessed. Is that a key imperative for the department to work on, as it prepares its formal response to the chief inspector’s report?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Yes, that is extremely important. I will write with a further update on what can be done about it. It will be no secret to noble Lords that the problem of data across the criminal justice system and the prison system is ongoing, and we are working with various systems of various ages, including those of elderly status. A great deal needs to be improved.
I will press on, having one eye on the time. One of the various points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was about the deportation of people who came here as a child. As far as they are protected, those people have to rely on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on family life, which is often a successful defence, because they will have no connections with the country to which they are being sent.
On other countries, the one with which we are the furthest forward at the moment, as far as I know, is Italy. The Lord Chancellor hopes to reach an agreement with Italy in the next few weeks. I do not think that I can go further than that, but there have been encouraging negotiations with Italy, and I hope that that and the Albanian situation will help significantly.
I understand that consultation with victims is conducted through victim liaison units. In the case of an FNO facing deportation, I am told that, where victims have signed up to the victim contact scheme, that consultation takes place.
I fully agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord Farmer about rehabilitation and the importance of social visits. As noble Lords know, he conducted two important reviews not long ago, and I believe the ministry has accepted all his recommendations. An important part of that work was the social aspect of prisoners. I am not aware of any reduction in emphasis being placed on that, but I will investigate and write accordingly. Almost all prisons in England and Wales now have facilities for secure video calls, or in-cell telephony. I do not know whether that is the case in Minsk or Sarajevo, but it is a considerable improvement on what used to be the case. It certainly does not exist in the United States or, I would have thought, San Miguel prison.
There are important efforts to encourage peer-to-peer support. Pilots are in progress at the moment with a particular focus on FNOs, although there are facilities for long-range contact. FNOs with no visitors can get free phone credits for overseas calls and free video calls, which is considerably better than nothing. As I said, all prisons across England and Wales offer secure video calls.
Noble Lords have raised some important issues. I hope we are grappling with them; their importance is in no way neglected. The overall situation is that the Government are making progress in this area. Noble Lords have made very good points which, if I have not already answered, I will answer in more detail in writing. I close by thanking noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Jackson, for raising these important issues.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Lord Bellamy ExcerptsTuesday 23rd April 2024
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 View all Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-II(Rev)(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Revised Marshalled List) - (23 Apr 2024)
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and Amendments 62 and 71, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. In this, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher.
The great thing about following the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is that it is like somebody doing your homework for you. All the way through this stage of the Bill, we have talked about children as being separate victims, and we got the “Uncle Tom Cobley and all” reason back—in that, if you have to mention one, you have to mention all in this. I think we have to be specific. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I went to the Lighthouse child house and saw its model. We saw how, when victims are treated specifically, we can get higher levels of prosecution, better health for them in future and save money in the outcome. Why would you not do that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I first bring forth the Government’s Amendment 75, which requires that Welsh Ministers be consulted on any guidance on victim support roles under Clause 15, so far as the content relates to devolved matters. Victim support roles may operate across criminal justice settings and include devolved health and local authority responsibilities. It is therefore right and entirely in line with the devolution settlement that Welsh Ministers are properly and fully consulted and that the Welsh context is properly reflected in the resulting guidance that will flow from that. I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his Amendments 72 and 73, which relate to this matter. It is the Government’s view that government Amendment 75 covers that ground and that it is no longer necessary for the noble Lord to press his amendment in this respect.
Amendment 61 is about consultation with providers who are under a duty to collaborate. It would create a mandatory requirement for relevant authorities to consult those providing support to child victims during the formulation of their strategy under Clause 13. We have just heard moving contributions on children. As I said last week during the debate, the Government have been clear throughout Part 1 that the distinct needs of children should indeed be taken into account. That is reflected in particular in Clauses 13(4) and 15(5), which specifically relate to children, now defined as individuals under the age of 18. Those clauses, among other things, require the commissioners to make reasonable efforts to obtain the views of relevant victims, which will expressly include children. The guidance will underpin that duty and set out best practice for consulting child victims and those who provide services to such victims.
We have fully discussed children. I do not think I need repeat anything that I have already said. The position of children is very widely recognised. Therefore, in the Government’s view, Amendment 61 is overtaken by the provisions that already exist in the Bill and what has already been said on behalf of the Government in this respect.
I come to Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which relates to support for victims with no recourse to public funds. I thank her for tabling that amendment. The code is clear that victims are entitled to access services, including support services, under the code regardless of their resident status. As has been mentioned, there is also access to funding and support through the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession. That mechanism was expanded last February to give victims who are here as the partner of a worker or student a short period of lawful status, financial stability and support while they consider their future options. That is a major extension of the concession that was first introduced in 2012.
Of course, the Government have heard the concerns raised about the need for a longer-term solution in this matter. Basically, two points arise. First, this is not that easy to address in the context of the wider immigration system and immigration policy. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a risk of creating a route that is attractive to some who seek to shortcut or abuse the immigration system, rather than the genuine victims of domestic abuse whom we all seek to support. That has to be worked through. However, if I may speak frankly, while the Government will of course continue to support this important matter, which has been raised many times in recent years, resources are not unlimited and this must now take its place in the next spending review. No doubt the Government will then come to a view as to how resources are allocated.
In the meantime, there is support under the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession. There is also the support for the migrant victim scheme, which provides wraparound support, including accommodation, subsistence and counselling to victims with no recourse to public funds. As I understand it, that has supported over 1,200 victims since April 2021. I would like to go further towards the noble Baroness and others who have supported this amendment, but I hope that what I have been able to say will at least persuade her not to press it further.
I come now to Amendments 60, 64, 66 and 67, which variously relate to guidance defining specialist community-based services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and so on, as well as the funding gap, a requirement that sufficient funding is provided annually to the relevant authorities to commission the relevant victim support services, and the establishment of cross-government “by and for” funding services. It is quite a large group, but your Lordships will have the general picture.
First, I very much thank the right reverend Prelate and others for their engagement on these amendments, along with representatives from the sector. Of course, the duty to collaborate under the Bill will need to have regard to the joint needs assessments, and the local strategies, which will be published, should include evidence of how the relevant authorities have carried out their needs assessments, as well as how those assessments have informed commissioning decisions.
I can commit that noble Lords will see in the draft guidance, shortly to be available, that it will set a clear expectation for local commissioners to share both a self-contained joint needs assessment document and joint strategies with the Ministry of Justice to enable the Government to bring together local intelligence on need. I very much hope and expect that this will provide the national framework for addressing the problems raised in this debate.
Lord Bellamy
“(8A) The victims’ code may make different provision for different areas.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change to reflect current practice not to treat provision for different areas as provision for different purposes.
Lord Bellamy
“(b) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, and(c) the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment of Clause 4, page 4, line 22, requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and the Welsh Ministers when preparing or revising the victims’ code.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment of Clause 3, page 3, line 28, requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and the Welsh Ministers when preparing or revising the victims’ code.
Lord Bellamy
“(A1) Where the victims’ code makes provision about a service to be provided to victims by a person, the person must provide the service in accordance with the code unless the person has good reasons not to. (A2) Any person who is subject to the duty in subsection (A1) and is not an individual must ensure that procedures are in place by which other persons may complain about an alleged failure to comply with the duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires persons specified in the victims’ code to provide services in accordance with it, unless they have good reasons not to, and to have procedures for dealing with complaints.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 6.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Lord Bellamy
“(A1) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General, acting jointly, must—(a) keep under review the code compliance of the persons mentioned in subsection (1), and(b) annually, prepare and publish a report about the code compliance of those persons in the period to which the report relates.(A2) If the Secretary of State and the Attorney General agree that the code compliance of a person mentioned in subsection (1) is unsatisfactory they may—(a) if the person is the chief officer of police for a police area, give the elected local policing body for the area a notice setting out their reasons for being of that view;(b) in any other case, give the person a notice setting out their reasons for being of that view.(A3) If the Secretary of State and the Attorney General give a notice under subsection (A2) they must—(a) if the notice is given under paragraph (a) of that subsection, send a copy of the notice to the chief officer of police to whom the notice relates, and(b) in any case, publish the notice in such form and manner as they consider appropriate.(A4) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General must consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses before—(a) publishing a report under subsection (A1)(b);(b) giving a notice under subsection (A2).(A5) The Secretary of State must publish such compliance information as the Secretary of State considers will enable members of the public to assess the code compliance of the persons mentioned in subsection (1) in the period to which the information relates.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Secretary of State and the Attorney General joint functions in relation to reviewing compliance with the victims’ code by police forces and other criminal justice bodies. The Secretary of State must also publish certain information in relation to the code compliance of such bodies.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before issuing guidance under Clause 11 on raising awareness of, and reviewing compliance with, the victims’ code.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
Lord Bellamy
“Disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement(1) A provision in an agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude the making of a disclosure falling within subsection (2).(2) A disclosure falls within this subsection if it is a disclosure of information that is made by a victim or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim—(a) to any person who has law enforcement functions, for the purpose of those functions being exercised in relation to relevant conduct;(b) to a qualified lawyer, for the purpose of seeking legal advice about relevant conduct;(c) to any individual who is entitled to practise a regulated profession, for the purpose of obtaining professional support in relation to relevant conduct;(d) to any individual who provides a service to support victims, for the purpose of obtaining support from that service in relation to relevant conduct;(e) to a regulator of a regulated profession for the purpose of co-operating with the regulator in relation to relevant conduct;(f) to a person who is authorised to receive information on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) for the purpose mentioned in that paragraph;(g) to a child, parent or partner of the person making the disclosure, for the purpose of obtaining support in relation to relevant conduct.(3) But a provision in an agreement is not void by virtue of subsection (1) so far as it purports to preclude a disclosure made for the primary purpose of releasing the information into the public domain.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section—(a) to add, remove or modify a description of disclosure in relation to which subsection (1) applies (“a permitted disclosure”);(b) to extend the application of subsection (1) to a provision in an agreement which purports to impose an obligation or liability in connection with a permitted disclosure.(5) But regulations under subsection (4)(a) must not make any provision which would apply subsection (1) in relation to a disclosure—(a) made by a person other than a victim or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim, or(b) that does not relate to relevant conduct.(6) In this section—“entitled to practise” , in relation to a regulated profession, is to be read in accordance with section 19(2) of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022; “law enforcement functions” means functions for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties;“partner” : a person is a “partner” of another person if they are married to each other, in a civil partnership with each other or in an intimate personal relationship with each other which is of significant duration;“qualified lawyer” means a person who is an authorised person in relation to a reserved legal activity for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007; “regulated profession” and“regulator” have the same meanings as in the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 (see section 19 of that Act);“relevant conduct” means conduct by virtue of which the person making the disclosure is or reasonably believes they are a victim (see section 1(1) and (2)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause, to be inserted after Clause 15, would make a provision of an agreement void if it purports to preclude a victim from making certain types of disclosure, unless the disclosure was made in order to release the information into the public domain.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 76 has been tabled to clarify that victims of crime can get the support they need without fear of legal action under confidentiality clauses, also known as non-disclosure agreements or NDAs. NDAs can and do serve a valid purpose to protect commercially sensitive information and deliver a clean break where parties seek closure on an issue, but they have been misused to make victims fear repercussions if they seek access to justice or support services. Reporting a crime to the police is already protected under common law, but the legal position is not as clear as it could be. The Government wish to avoid a situation where NDAs might be used to prevent victims telling support services and close family about criminal conduct that has happened to them.
I am therefore pleased to bring forward this amendment, which makes it clear in primary legislation that confidentiality clauses cannot be legally enforced to the extent that they prevent victims reporting a crime or accessing confidential advice and much-needed support. It sets out who a victim can make disclosures to and for what purposes, which includes the police, regulatory bodies, lawyers, support services, and a victim’s partner, parent, or child. However, to protect legitimate uses of NDAs, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that disclosure to those permitted third parties must not be for the primary purpose of releasing information into the public domain, because we want to avoid a situation where somebody, for example, uses a lawyer to front up the disclosure of confidential information when that is not justified.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is really a pleasure to respond to this group from these Benches, because there is real progress. It is important to record thanks to everybody who has made this progress happen. I very much welcome the clarification that the Minister has made in Amendment 76. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is quite right, though, that this is a first step. Indeed, today a useful brief was sent to me and possibly other noble Lords from the Bar Council, which makes the point that the issue of non-disclosure agreements is ripe for legislative change. The Bar Council welcomes the Government’s intention to implement legislative reform and recognises that some NDAs are abusive in nature. NDAs cannot cover criminal acts, and under existing common-law protections many are already unenforceable, but those who are asked to sign them are not always aware of the relevant legal principles. When you have the Bar Council and everybody else on your side, you know that this is an important first step.
On the Government’s amendments, I welcome Amendment 85, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, welcomed it. I thank the Minister and his team for listening and for bringing forward this amendment, which was aired in Committee very powerfully indeed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Newlove. Then, of course, there is a suite of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I was very pleased to be able to support these in Committee. These Benches are absolutely in favour of them; they have the support of the whole House. I know from the very long time ago when I was a Minister how much work goes into getting to this place. I congratulate the noble Baroness and say how much we are in favour of these amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is absolutely right to be disappointed about the Government not accepting Amendments 87A and 88A. It is probably clear that we have not come to the end of this. The noble Baroness is quite right in nodding to say, “We have definitely not come to the end of this discussion about what needs to happen to support victims with requests for dealing with digital and other information, and providing the right kind of safeguards for them”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is right, and she has our Benches’ support for her amendment. If there were to be a Division on this then it would be next week. Between now and then we need to look at what the Minister has said to see if we can push him a bit further than he has gone, and then maybe we could avoid that, but the noble Baroness needs to know that she has these Benches’ support, and probably that of the Liberal Democrats, if we need to take the issue further. All in all, we have made great progress.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I shall answer a couple of questions and make one clarification. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who said, “Come on now, when are the code and the protocol going to be available?” I am afraid that, at this point, I cannot advance matters further other than to say, according to my instructions, that the code will be available for parliamentary scrutiny this spring—I know that is not as precise as anyone would like—and that the protocol will be launched later this year. These matters are under the control of the Home Office, and we had a discussion earlier about the relationship between 102 Petty France and Marsham Street. That is as far as I can go at the moment, and I apologise to the noble Baroness that I cannot be more precise.
I am prepared, as always, to have a further exchange of views on Amendment 96. I am not sure we can take it much further but we are always ready to listen, since throughout the Bill we are dealing with the problem of striking a balance between effective immigration control and victim support, and unfortunately there are always trade-offs to be made.
To respond to my noble friend Lady Morgan about requests for relevant information, new Section 44A(6) requires that the request is proportionate. The authorised person must be satisfied that there is no other means of obtaining the information or, if there are such means, that they are not practicable. The decision to release the information ultimately lies with the third party, and that third party has their own obligation under the Data Protection Act and their own duties of confidentiality owed to the person concerned. Again, I respectfully suggest that, bearing in mind my noble friend Lady Bertin’s amendments, the balance between fair-trial rights and victim protection is effectively drawn in the result that we have arrived at. It is not perfect, I know, but it seems to be a practical solution to a very difficult problem.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting him, but I want to thank him for suggesting that we might meet to discuss Amendment 96 before we come back next week. Obviously, I would be delighted to have a discussion about that.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I just wanted to put on record that we have agreed that we will meet, and I welcome that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, although this has been a relatively short debate, it has been quite comprehensive. All noble Lords have spoken with brevity about these sensitive issues.
I will highlight two points. First, I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about how any order made by the Crown Court should automatically be reviewed by the family court. That was a useful addition to the amendment, although I suspect my noble friend may be pressing the amendments as they are. Nevertheless, I thought it was an insightful point.
My other point about Amendment 91, on psychologists and people with professional expertise, is that the problems extend beyond experts. In family courts, I see McKenzie friends who clearly have their own agendas, and it is an issue with which one has to deal—but that is a tangent to the main points in these amendments. If my noble friend chooses to press her amendment, we will of course support her.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, we have before us various amendments that deal essentially with family justice. I will deal first with Amendment 91, which proposes that only experts regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council undertake certain psychological assessments. The Government entirely appreciate the aim of this amendment—something needs to be done. This problem probably extends to healthcare generally. In the Ministry of Justice, we have been in discussion with the Department of Health about the term “psychologist”, what it means, whether one should regulate it and so forth. The Government’s position is that only psychologists who are regulated should be undertaking psychological assessments in the family court.
The short point is that this is going to be better dealt with under the Family Procedure Rules than in primary legislation. In particular, in this Bill, for reasons of scope, you can deal with it only in relation to victims of criminal conduct. We need an across-the-board solution, worked out through the Family Procedure Rule Committee, to implement changes that would ensure that, where a psychologist undertakes any psychological assessment in private law children proceedings, they are suitably regulated and that that broader work encapsulates any other problems that arise in relation to unregulated experts. The position of the Lord Chancellor is that this matter should be undertaken now by the Family Procedure Rule Committee—which operates in very close collaboration with practitioners, judges and all those involved in the family law scene—to implement changes, rather than it being done through this primary legislation.
Lord Meston (CB)
I fully understand the point that the Minister is making. Can he indicate whether this problem has now been referred to the relevant Family Procedure Rule Committee? If it has, I would hope that it would get urgent and speedy consideration. If it has not, when will it be?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
There have been preliminary discussions with the committee but it has not formally started work. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise date, but I can say that there is a reserve power under Section 78A of the Courts Act 2003 which entitles the Lord Chancellor to require the Family Procedure Rule Committee to consider the point. In the Government’s submission, that is the way that this should be dealt with, rather than in this necessarily narrow Bill.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It would be extremely regrettable if the Family Procedure Rule Committee were to refuse to embark on this exercise, particularly in the light of the comments made in the House today and in the other place. It is clearly something that should be done. That is as far as I can reasonably go at the Dispatch Box. That is essentially our position on Amendment 91: let us take it down the route of the Family Procedure Rule Committee.
Amendment 83 brings us to Jade’s law and Clause 16. This is where one parent murders the other. It is a very specific situation, because you have got only one parent left. In all other situations that we are discussing, you have two parents. Amendment 83 concerns where the parent who has committed the murder is a victim of domestic abuse. That is the purpose of this. The Government’s position—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston, came quite close to saying the same thing—is that this is effectively already dealt with in the existing Clause 16. It does not suspend parental responsibility for an offender convicted of voluntary manslaughter where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
We are talking here about a Sally Challen-type case, if I may use that expression. The “interest of justice” test is one with which Crown Court judges are familiar in the context of sentencing guidelines. Engaging the test is a matter for judicial discretion, but certainly in those cases where the victim has lashed out after years of abuse, they are very likely to fall within this exception, and that is why we have provided for voluntary manslaughter.
It does not seem to the Government that we need any more formal provision in the existing Clause 16 to take account of the situation where the murderer has suffered domestic abuse, because that is already implicit in the clause. If it were the case that, for some reason, Clause 16 was nonetheless to bite, it does, as has been pointed out, provide a pathway for review by the family court. The family court is not going to take away parental responsibility from a mother who has lashed out, if I may use that expression. The Government’s view is we do not need Amendment 83: it is already fairly well covered. I take these points quite shortly because I think it is important to keep this debate fairly short.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the extent of the restrictions placed on an offender with respect to a child by a prohibited steps order made under new section 10A of the Children Act 1989.
Lord Bellamy
“Victim representations to mental health tribunals(1) Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (victims’ rights to make representations and receive information) is amended as follows.(2) In section 37(8)(c)(i), for “that area” substitute “that local probation board”.(3) After section 37 insert—“37ZA Victim impact statements where restriction order made(1) This section applies if, in a case where section 37 applies, an application or reference mentioned in subsection (5) of that section is made to the First-tier Tribunal or the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales.(2) The relevant probation body—(a) must take all reasonable steps to ascertain whether a person who appears to the body to be the victim of the offence or to act for the victim of the offence wishes to provide a victim impact statement to the body, and(b) if the person provides such a statement, must forward it to the tribunal.(3) Where a victim impact statement has been forwarded to the tribunal under subsection (2), the tribunal must—(a) allow the person who made the statement to request permission to read the statement to the tribunal at a relevant hearing, and(b) grant such permission unless the tribunal considers that there are good reasons not to.(4) The tribunal may have regard to the statement when determining a matter specified in section 36(5)(a) or (b) (but must not have regard to it for any other purpose).(5) In this section—“relevant hearing” means any hearing held by the tribunal before making a decision which disposes of proceedings on the application or reference mentioned in subsection (1);“the relevant probation body” has the meaning given in section 37(8);“victim impact statement” means a statement about the way in which, and degree to which, the offence has affected and (as the case may be) continues to affect the victim or any other person.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for victims of certain serious offences, where the offender is subject to a hospital order with a restriction order, to provide a "victim impact statement" to a tribunal which is considering certain matters in relation to the discharge of the offender.
Lord Bellamy
“(za) in subsection (1)(c), for “section 32” substitute “section 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, including the extent to which the duty in section 5(A1) of that Act (duty to provide services in accordance with the code) is being complied with”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Victims’ Commissioner to keep under review compliance with the victims’ code (see my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27).
Parents: Separation
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, few subjects can be more important than the one we are discussing this evening, and I rather doubt my ability to do justice to everything that has been said in the 12 minutes allotted to me. I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for his opening remarks and for securing this debate, and all noble Lords who have spoken. I think we are all agreed that family separation can be extremely stressful and very damaging to the children, particularly if there is a prolonged period of lack of contact, as my noble friend Lady Meyer pointed out. In those circumstances, the Government are actively supporting, and improving support, for parents considering separation, and are adopting a number of measures to promote early resolutions.
The best approach is probably if I update the House on what we are actually doing, following our response published on 26 January to our earlier consultation on early resolution of family disputes. What the Ministry of Justice is doing, of course, is in addition to other work across government, including the rollout of family hubs. Again, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer in this respect. Family hubs are led by the Department for Education. There is also funding from the Department for Work and Pensions for local authorities to deliver the Reducing Parental Conflict programme.
The House will have heard in the recent Budget that the Ministry of Justice has been awarded a further investment of £55 million, specifically for the family courts. That comes, basically, in three buckets—if I may say so. The first is one that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, have mentioned. I pay tribute to her, not only for her distinguished past as a former chair of Cafcass and in other respects, but for the post-legislative scrutiny carried out in relation to the 2014 Act, from which we have all greatly profited. However, the three buckets are, first, greatly improved, facilitated, targeted online guidance and information, so parents know where to go and can find out, at a very early stage, all the sources of support out there. There are quite a lot of sources of support, but no one can find them or knows about them—they are not joined up. The first part of the funding will be for a new online resource that will serve as a trusted and accessible source of authoritative information, relevant to the needs of the family and the needs of the parents, providing options—which will include mediation, but not only that because there are other forms of dispute resolution away from court—with the support of guidance and expert organisations in the third sector.
To deal specifically with one of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Farmer, I say that I am quite sure that links between this programme and the family hubs will be an important aspect of it—family hubs among other means of support. Indeed, if the present process for online divorce does not refer people across to the appropriate support facilities, then it should. That is another very important area, and I am very grateful to noble Lords for drawing our attention to it. Specifically, just as we have been discussing in another context a child-friendly version of the victims’ code, I would have thought that a child-friendly part of this newly available information was a specific emphasis on how we keep children informed, not only about what is happening in their case, but the general availability of support for them. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby suggested, I am sure that would also be important.
I am hoping that this will be a major step forward in how we intervene as early as we can in family disputes, combining it, as I say, with the DWP’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme, the family hubs and other programmes that a number of local authorities are already running to support separating couples—or, indeed, couples who have not yet separated but who are going through a difficult patch, which is to go back to an even earlier stage.
We are championing the family hubs that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has been such a keen advocate of. There is around £300 million to develop family hubs in 75 upper-tier local authorities. There are now around 400 family hubs altogether, and there is further support for opening further family hubs in another 13 local authorities. That is an ongoing programme, and I hope that it will come to full fruition, in collaboration with the kinds of things that I am trying to explain from the point of view of the Ministry of Justice.
In addition, the second bucket of our new funding is indeed to tackle this point about early legal advice, which is so important and was raised by the post-legislative scrutiny committee and a number of others. What we are doing is piloting; government being what it is, you have to pilot these things these days—you cannot go straight towards just doing it. It is important to learn from the pilot how to do things. I shall come back to that point in the pathfinder context.
The purpose at the moment is to expand, with the additional money that we now have, a pilot for early family legal advice, probably initially in six areas. As noble Lords probably remember, we have 43 areas across the country that have a designated family judge in charge. We can now go to six areas initially; the details are being worked out, but I am hoping that this will be up and running by the autumn. By September we should have something in place. It will be very important, among other things, to promote it and make sure that people know that it is there and that they can access it easily. We had a pilot in the ministry a couple of years ago with support in family housing, which did not work because nobody knew that it was there so nobody used it. It was in Middlesbrough, and possibly Manchester, but it was not successful, so I am very conscious that we have to sell this as well as establish it, and those details are being worked through at the moment.
That is early legal advice. Then there is the diversion when people have had early legal advice, which may lead to more referrals to mediation, or other forms of court dispute resolution. We are continuing to support the voucher scheme for mediation; that demand has been strong, with 27,000 families so far, and has cost £23 million or so. By March 2025, we think that 44,000 families will have used the scheme, so that will continue to support mediation—and, at the same time, we are working closely with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to make the mediation information and assessment meeting, which has been mentioned, more effective. The new rules come into force on 29 April, next Monday. I hope that that will prevent MIAM from being, as it had become in some areas, a tick-box exercise.
Ah, the lights have gone out; I must have said something very controversial. I still have enough light to carry on.
That provision is proceeding, as are pathfinder courts. We of course support Cafcass, but those courts focus on the voice of the child. We have an early child impact report, we have support from domestic abuse agencies, we have a case progression officer and we have other things. It has been notably successful in reducing strife and the Government’s intention now is no longer a pilot, it is a project, and we are going to roll it out across the country. We have done Dorset and north Wales, we are doing Birmingham and Cardiff, but I am pressing very hard for a plan so that we change it across the whole country over the next year or so. My Whip is telling me to sit down, although I am trying enthusiastically to carry on. I will write to those noble Lords whose questions I have not been able to answer in the very limited time I have.
The President of the Family Division describes the pathfinder as the most important change in private family law that we have had for a generation, and that is going to be a very good thing and the right note to end on.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we will now adjourn again to wait for a message on the Rwanda Bill. We will resume at a time to be shown on the Annunciator.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Lord Bellamy ExcerptsTuesday 16th April 2024
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 View all Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-I(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (16 Apr 2024)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his extensive consultation with me and colleagues on my side of the House, and with many other noble Lords who have taken an active interest in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, very adequately set out his amendment. It is not a matter for me, but my understanding is that he is unlikely to push it to a vote. If he were to do so, we would not support it, as I have explained to the noble Lord. Having said that, I acknowledge that there has been wide consultation and the Government are moving their own amendments in this group. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of his amendments.
I will briefly touch on the personal testimony of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about her life as a family judge. I will also touch on what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about the meetings he went to with the victims, which I also attended. But I want to say something a little bit different. Of course, it was extremely upsetting, but I have to say that I was absolutely amazed by the resilience of the victims we spoke to and their keenness to help other child victims who still come forward today. I found that extremely admirable.
This is the first group, and we will be moving on to more contentious issues in subsequent groups. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for moving his amendment, and those who have spoken in support of it. In particular, I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her sobering words. I also salute the courage of the children who have participated in discussions about the progress of the Bill. I say to them: you have achieved quite a lot by participating in this discussion.
As I hope to explain to the House, the Government are absolutely clear that victims who are children have particular experiences of criminality that are different from the adult experience. They have different needs from adult victims and they therefore require a different approach. That, as I hope to explain, is fully recognised.
That said, the amendment in itself is not one the Government can support, for the simple reason that children are already included as victims under Part 1 of the Bill. The Government’s view is that that is manifestly clear, as a matter of legal drafting, across the statute book. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just pointed out, “person” includes “child” and that is beyond argument. That is the customary usage across the whole statute book, and the Government are not persuaded that we need to make an exception in this case.
On the technical matter of legal drafting, as I have just emphasised, children are in a very special position when it comes to the victims’ code. That is why the current code sets out specific provisions for child victims and others who are considered vulnerable or intimidated. Those are known at the moment as enhanced rights. That is also why we have committed—and I therefore recommit the Government—to ensuring that the new victims’ code, which will go out to consultation as soon as we have Royal Assent, fully addresses the needs of child victims in particular. We shall seek views on the proposals regarding children in that public consultation.
I come to the government amendments in this group. In particular, we have listened carefully to the arguments for greater assurances as to the Government’s intentions, which is why we are proposing government Amendment 21, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which will ensure that the Secretary of State must consider whether different provision is required in the code as a result of the particular needs of children, now defined as those under the age of 18, and those with protected characteristics, when the new code is prepared and during any future revisions to the code. Although this group is about children, I entirely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about other vulnerable persons, who are also covered by Amendment 21. That is a perfectly fair point, and one that the Government have well in mind.
The Government are delighted to have worked constructively with the Children’s Commissioner to consider how the victims’ code can better reflect the distinct needs and experiences of child victims. I am pleased that the noble Baroness expressed personally to me the other day her strong support for this amendment and her personal appreciation of the Government’s work in this area.
To move on through the Bill, in addition, Clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance for agencies delivering code awareness and compliance duties, which will specifically include guidance on how sensitively and effectively to gather information on children. Clause 13 states that commissioners under the duty to collaborate must consider the specific needs of children when preparing their joint needs assessments and local strategy. Clause 15 requires the same when issuing guidance on support roles. I hope noble Lords might accept that we now have, in the Bill itself and prospectively in the revised code, very full provision for children.
The word “children” is a slightly colloquial term—it can mean a number of things to different people—so, for absolute clarity, we have tabled amendments to change the references to “children” in Clauses 11, 13 and 15 to
“individuals who are under the age of 18”
to make it clear that there is a very clear legal cut-off for the special requirements of children, which is those under the age of 18. Those are Amendments 54, 63 and 74.
Finally, I add also that we have heard the concerns about young victims not always being able to engage with the code or understand the sometimes overcomplicated documents that the Government produce. On behalf of the Government, I commit to developing an accessible version of the new code—a “child-friendly” version, if I may refer to it colloquially—which we also intend to consult on post Royal Assent, as we recognise that we can do more to improve the accessibility of these provisions for children themselves.
All that said, I think I have already explained that the Government do not, for what I must confess is a somewhat technical reason, but a real reason none the less, support the proposal to change the drafting as suggested in Amendment 1. But I hope that I have sufficiently explained the supreme importance of children, and the Government’s recognition of that importance.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, apologies; I have a migraine and I think the medication has messed with my head. I meant to talk also to Amendments 3 and 6.
Although, again, I appreciate all the informal meetings and the meetings with my office, I still wish to make a point about the impact of anti-social behaviour. It is generally accepted that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour can suffer enormous anguish and harm. Indeed, that is the rhetoric that we hear, but people really do not grasp and do not see what is underneath. I say this because I have met many victims who are unable, sadly, to live in their own home: parents who tell me their teenage children have had to leave the family home sooner than otherwise to escape distress, and grandparents who are no longer able to look after grandchildren in their own home as they fear for their well-being. This is first hand from the very people who suffer on a daily basis. The intolerable strain this behaviour can have on personal relationships, the adverse effect it can have on children’s behaviour in school, the terrible difficulties for adults coping with this stress while holding down employment—all this is due to the trauma caused by persistent anti-social behaviour.
One of the recurring messages I hear from these victims is that they feel they are going through this nightmare entirely alone. All too often, police officers, housing officers and local government officials who are dealing with their complaints fail to recognise the level of harm being caused. In many cases, these officials even fail to acknowledge that the victims are being wronged. Some police officers are all too quick to tell the victim that it must be six of one and half a dozen of the other, no doubt in an attempt to avoid investigating the complaints. Let me tell noble Lords that that statement can have a devastating effect on the victim.
Yet, as was acknowledged by the Minister and officials when we met last week, the vast majority of these victims are victims of crime. As such, under the victims’ code, they are entitled to receive support from victims’ services. Yet I know that all too often, victims are not advised of this, nor is any referral made. Why not? Because the police do not want to tackle the issue through criminal action against the perpetrators. A victim’s entitlement to support does not depend on a decision by a police officer on what action, if any, they plan to take against the perpetrators. Once the action of the perpetrator reaches the criminal threshold, the victims’ code entitlements are automatically activated.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, seeks to plug this gap. I recognise that there are many other ways in which we can achieve this objective. It is hugely reassuring that this amendment has prompted a discussion between Ministers and officials in the MoJ and the Home Office. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response to these discussions and hope that the measures which he sets out today provide reassurance, not only to this House but to the many victims of anti-social behaviour across this country, who have suffered alone and are sitting in silence as we speak about this behaviour today.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this part of the debate, where we are discussing extending the definition of “victim” and providing mechanisms for dealing with four different areas: anti-social behaviour; child criminal exploitation; victims abroad; and carers of victims of serious sexual and violent crime. I thank noble Lords for their thanks and reciprocate to everyone in the House, on all sides, who has collaborated with the Government generally on trying to move this Bill forward.
It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, that the Government lack sympathy for the various points that have been made—quite the contrary. For various reasons, some technical, some substantive, the Government do not feel that the statutory amendments in this group are the right way to go in changing the statute, as distinct from other means of addressing the issue.
I will deal first with anti-social behaviour, and pick up some of the most moving remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has just made, The Government have listened very carefully to these concerns. The impact of persistent anti-social behaviour, and the need to deal with it, is very firmly on the Government’s radar. However, the first point to make is that which the noble Baroness has just made: almost all cases of persistent anti-social behaviour of the kind that are causing real damage are already criminal conduct. In a most moving letter to me of 4 April, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made exactly the same point, saying that this is already a crime, and so people are already entitled to the protection and services available under the code. The question is how we do this in practice. How do we join the dots, if I may put it like that, and overcome the widespread fallacy that because the police have not done anything one is no longer a victim? The police not having done anything does not mean that victim services should not be available. That is the practical problem that we are facing.
At the moment, the Government are not persuaded that this amendment would solve the practical problem. It has one significant disadvantage—possibly an inadvertent disadvantage—in that it would extend the code to non-criminal behaviour that falls within the context of anti-social behaviour. With cases of loud music and so forth, which really is a nuisance, such lesser kinds of anti-social behaviour would benefit from the victims’ code. In the Government’s view, that is not a good or desirable result, because it would mean extending victim services, which are already very stretched, away from the really serious problems and difficulties that victims are facing to lower levels of anti-social behaviour. That is perhaps an unintended consequence but not one that the Government particularly want to encourage via this amendment. Therefore, the amendment is too widely drawn.
To step back, rather than going down the route of this amendment the Government propose, in line with other improvements to the code in other areas, to update the anti-social guidance where necessary to ensure that, when a crime is identified, victims are informed of their entitlements under the victims’ code. The Government’s intention is to explore and consult on how best to make clear in the new victims’ code that its entitlements apply to persistent anti-social behaviour where the criminal threshold is met and that police are required to refer people to support services regardless of whether there is sufficient evidence to charge or whether they are going to pursue any particular action. If we get the code right on this point, it will help victims and service providers to recognise that failing to refer these victims to support services could be a breach of the new duty—which we will discuss in the next group—to act in accordance with the code.
On top of that, the code’s compliance mechanisms, at Clauses 6 to 11, will shine a light where non-compliance issues are found to be systemic. That will enable robust additional tools and steps to be brought to bear when agencies fall short. As we will explain in the next session, the Victims’ Commissioner will play a very central role in overseeing this new code, and be consulted on all its aspects and on ensuring that we join the dots and that this problem finally is tackled.
In addition, the Criminal Justice Bill, currently making its way through the other place, particularly in Clause 81, addresses some of the existing concerns and processes to tackle, among other things, persistent anti-social behaviour, including promoting awareness of the review process and setting out more consistently what local policing bodies have to do, so that victims can expect a more consistent service.
Rather than going down one particular way of dealing with this problem, which is the subject in the amendment, and which may have unintended and too wide consequences, the Government’s position is to tackle this through the code. We will continue, of course, to engage with the Victims’ Commissioner and seek her views on our work in this area. She is particularly well placed to help the code, the Government, the local police forces and so forth develop proper mechanisms for joining up these dots.
There are parts of the country where this is working quite well, so let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because of the way in which the assessments will be made, and because of the oversight that is envisaged in the structure of the Bill, there will be ways of bringing the less well-performing police forces and local services up to the level of those that do it properly. That will ensure that victims know how to access these services.
Let us not forget that there is a wider anti-social behaviour action plan, which goes hand in hand with this. There has been £160 million of new funding to tackle anti-social behaviour. With these various routes and approaches, and determination to tackle the area, that is the Government’s position. We respectfully suggest that it is a more positive, sensible, broadly based and effective way of doing it than this amendment, well-intentioned though it is. That is the Government’s position on anti-social behaviour.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I was trying to make the point that the noble and learned Lord has started to make: there are lots of different agencies involved, and they do not collect the same, consistent data. Something on the face of the Bill would ensure that the data was consistent and would help everybody.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Again, that is going a little bit further than either the amendment or the Bill as it stands, because the collecting of data in this area is a very complicated task, and we know that collecting data in general is quite tricky. What I am saying is that I am not entirely convinced at the moment by the argument put forward by the noble Baroness. In all respects, the Government consider that the amendment would not really take things further. Extending the definition of a victim is unnecessary because the issue is already covered.
I should say a word about the county lines problem. A full county lines programme has been in operation now for some years. The figures I have are that we have had 16,000 arrests and 9,000 safeguarding referrals. The Government are working very hard on dealing with the county lines problem, and there is special support through the county lines programme for children involved in that. It is clearly a difficult area, but it is not that nobody is tackling it. Would the amendment take the issue forward particularly in the county lines situation? I respectfully suggest that that is doubtful. So that is the Government’s position on child criminal exploitation.
On homicides of British nationals abroad, again the Government are entirely sympathetic to the various points that have been made. On a point of detail, since we are talking about what the victims’ code should cover, if the perpetrator of the murder is another British national, then that can be an offence triable in this country and it would trigger the application of the victims’ code. But most of these cases will be where the perpetrator is not a British national, and it seems reasonably clear that, where the offence or murder or homicide is in Ecuador or Peru or South Africa or wherever it is, large parts of the victims’ code by their nature will not be applicable. The various rights to information, the various rights about prosecution decisions and the right to make a personal statement would all, by the nature of the situation, not apply. From a quick look at the victims’ code, rights 1 to 3 and 6 to 11, for example, just would not apply. I think that leaves, essentially, right 4, which is the right to victims services. At the moment, the support available is provided by the Homicide Service, which in the United Kingdom is provided by Victim Support, a most excellent organisation, to which the Foreign Office can refer victims.
So there is already, by proxy, support for victims of homicide abroad, but I think that the complaint is that it is not sufficient. Hearing that complaint, the Government, as we develop the new victims’ code, will review the information provided for bereaved families of victims of homicide abroad so we can be clear what the entitlements of families are. The NPCC, the FCDO and the MoJ have committed to working together to explore separate guidance, to be referenced within the code, specifying the roles and responsibilities of each department and their services. That would act as a public commitment on how they will work together to support bereaved families and, I think, provide the consistent protocol—to use the words that were being used some moments ago—to assist families in this very difficult position.
Finally, in relation to the amendment regarding carers—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In the plan he has just outlined of the three departments working together, does he envisage establishing a checklist that FCDO staff in every embassy and consulate will have that will mean they will prospectively know about interpreters and appropriate lawyers who could be pulled in, in the event of there being a homicide in that jurisdiction, so that some of the problems that have arisen to date would be avoided by each consulate and embassy being adequately prepared? Will the education behind that become mandatory guidance, so we would know that, in practice, a clear system had been set up? I would be grateful if he clarified that, because simply the three departments working together here might not influence what happens on the ground elsewhere, learning from the experience of other places.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I can, at the Dispatch Box this evening, commit the Government to proposing such a checklist in that detail, because the details will have to be worked out. However, the Government hear what the noble Baroness says and it is an obvious matter to consider. That is as far as I can go this evening.
Finally, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will forgive me if I take the question of carers a little bit shortly. The central problem with the amendment is the extension of the code and the rather blurred boundaries that might lead to quite a lot of extra resource demands, extra entitlements and so forth, so the Government are not persuaded that we should go as far as that. However, this point is correctly raised as a social and quasi-legal issue, and I can commit that the Government are already working with the Children’s Commissioner specifically on children’s needs and looking afresh at the needs of vulnerable adults ahead of public consultation on the code. I can commit to considering the experience and needs of parents and carers as they support particular victims through the criminal justice system. As to whether that requires further provision, I can commit to carefully considering how the accompanying statutory guidance might best set out how criminal justice bodies can effectively engage with the very important group that the noble Baroness identifies, who are so key to the support of their loved one, the direct victim, but I think that is as far as I can go on this group.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for summing up so comprehensively —in fact, going over the new Report stage time limit, for which I am grateful. The issues we are talking about, in particular murder abroad, anti-social behaviour and the definition of child criminal exploitation, are long standing and not new; they come back again and again. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, in a situation such as in 2015, after the incident in Tunisia, the Government decided that they were going to do something about it, got their act together in short order and demonstrated what is possible if they really put their mind to something. In a sense, that is what we are challenging the Government to do, in separate ways, on each of these issues.
On anti-social behaviour, the Minister talked about joining the dots and getting the code right. He admitted that it is not as joined up as it should be. The problem that I think many of us have with the way the Government are responding to some of these issues is that they keep returning to saying what different agencies and individuals should be doing, but they seem very afraid to say what they must be doing. The common theme in all these areas is that we are challenging the Government. Indeed, what are a Government elected to do—albeit not by noble Lords, because we are not allowed to vote—if not to make things happen? That is really what we are looking for. In the case of anti-social behaviour, if the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, decides to test the opinion of the House I would fully endorse that.
On child criminal exploitation, the updated guidance is fine. The key, as ever, is consistency, and at the moment there is a lack of consistency. The Minister said, and I am quoting, that it should be “in the heads” of front-line practitioners. The fact is that it is not in their heads in the same way for all the key front-line practitioners. That is the complexity. The challenge for the Government is to try to get a degree of consistency in the way child criminal exploitation is understood and dealt with, which is clearly not the case at the moment, so there is more to be done.
I thank my noble friend Lady Finlay very much for what she said about homicides abroad. I take the point about what happens if the perpetrator is not a UK national but, again, if the Government really wanted to put their mind to this, I am sure they could find a way. We are talking about such a small group—60 to 80 individuals per annum. It is not beyond the wit of man, let alone a Government, to focus and try to find a way of ameliorating a situation that has been festering for years and really does need to be dealt with. We also have more to do on carers.
I reiterate that the challenge for the Government is that we are looking for guidance from them as to what must be happening, not simply what should be happening. That has been the case for the last 15 years, and what should be happening is not happening in so many areas. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the victims’ code issued under Clause 2 is directed at persons exercising functions of a public nature relating to victims or any aspect of the criminal justice system.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to the relevant government amendments on the victims’ code and compliance, I will summarise the ways in which the Government have strengthened the code and the framework in which the various duties under the code arise.
There are essentially seven points to make quickly. There is a new statutory duty on agencies to act in accordance with the code and a statutory duty to have a complaints procedure. The amendments set out what is now required instead of what “should” happen. There is a duty on Ministers to review the code, and to publish an annual report on compliance and lay that before Parliament. There is a power to issue non-compliance notices, a most important enforcement mechanism. There is significant strengthening of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, who is empowered to keep under review compliance with the code; has a right to be consulted on all the regulations and guidance, and the code itself; and will also be part of the ministerial task force to enforce the code and the statutory guidance under Clause 11. Those are the various amendments which I will move, but I summarise them as a package so that people can see the whole package as an important strengthening of the code. I hope we have arrived at a very considered position in relation to the status of this code.
I will go through the amendments in turn. Government Amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on relevant agencies to provide services in accordance with the victims’ code unless there is a good reason not to. This duty does not give agencies licence in any way to ignore the code. It allows for a bit of operational discretion to cope with circumstances where the agency is, for whatever reason, short of resources or cannot quite meet the timescale or whatever, but it places that statutory duty firmly on the agencies. In addition, Amendment 31 places a duty on relevant agencies to have complaints procedures for non-compliance with their duty to provide services in accordance with the code. That is a duty that has been elevated from the code into the statute, to demonstrate that complaints must be taken seriously and victims should receive the level of service they are entitled to and deserve. Government Amendments 33, 38, 40, 42, 98 and 99 are consequential on that.
There is a short amendment, Amendment 9, that makes it clear that the victims’ code is applicable only to
“persons exercising functions of a public nature”.
That is a small tidying-up amendment and is, I hope, not controversial.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, there is great consensus across the House to say thank you to the Minister and his team for the steps that have taken us forward. I went through all these amendments to look at what they contained. They reminded me of the debates that we had in Committee about the things we wanted to see strengthened in the Bill. We should be pleased that we have made such progress. The Minister has done a great service to the victims’ code and compliance. I am also with my noble friend, in that it is a good start but we would like to go further. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, echoed that.
We would be very pleased on these Benches to support the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, in her amendment. I have been in the House for 26 years and have been in a similar position as a Back-Bencher on something I really cared about and thought should happen. It is possible that we may have a solution from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and that would be great, but there is always another Bill coming down the track. I can say from these Benches with some certainty that, if there is another Bill coming down the track and the noble Baroness goes for it again, we will support her. It sometimes takes a little while but, quite often, if you have an issue that you care about—I think this is a really important issue—you will get there. But perhaps the Minister will say yes to the noble Baroness —let us hope so.
The second issue is in the amendments about training, both of which are very important. We will certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his amendment at the appropriate time, when it is dealt with. This is a very good example of how the House works best when we continue to talk to each other about all the things that we want to see happen. It is amazing how often you start a Bill and the Government Benches and the Bill team think that the Bill they have is perfect—of course they do—and should not be changed, but the iterative process of discussion and debate we go through in this House does improve legislation. This is a good example of that.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the sincerity with which their various points have been made. I will briefly reply to the amendments not proposed by the Government. Unfortunately, while understanding all the points that have been made, the Government are not in a position to accept the amendments as they are. Although noble Lords have been kind enough to say that this is good progress and to express their thanks, I make it absolutely clear that I work with my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, and he is the boss, and my right honourable friend Minister Argar was responsible for this Bill in the other place. Although it is very kind of noble Lords to make compliments to me, they should please bear in mind that I am part of a wider team, supported by an excellent staff.
We are not in competition with Marsham Street—or at least, we do not see it that way—but under the present Lord Chancellor, progress on this Bill has reflected the current ethos of the Ministry of Justice. I fully welcome and support the plea from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for more financial resources for the Ministry of Justice; that would be wonderful. But we work with what we have and, of course, some of those constraints have provoked the Government’s inability to go quite as far as others would like.
Amendments 23 and 122, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would place the victims’ code in a schedule to the Bill and make related changes. I hope I have reassured her on our strengthened approach, and that compliance with the code is not optional. It may have been seen as optional in the past, but this is quite a change. As an alternative to Amendment 32, which would promote enforcement through the courts, we have a different non-compliance notification process which I hope will be equally effective. We are very reluctant as a Government to go down a court-based route because that can take up more resources and be less effective and more counter-productive than other routes.
We are very much in favour of the other routes that we have developed, I hope comprehensively, in the Bill, including the need to have clear compliance procedures, bolstering the accountability framework to make sure that there is appropriate recourse and, in particular, relying heavily on the independent scrutiny of the Victims’ Commissioner. So those various mechanisms collectively should give us a good framework; let us give them a good try and see, as noble Lords have suggested. At some point we may need to go further, but this is a good start, is it not? That question is rhetorical, so noble Lords do not have to answer.
Amendments 24, 26, 27, 29 and 30 concern consulting the Victims’ Commissioner. We have effectively covered the same ground in the Government’s amendments, and I do not think I need say any more about that. We have not gone down the route of putting all this through the affirmative procedure. I am not entirely persuaded that the affirmative procedure is as good as it might be, in that you can only say yes or no, et cetera. But the procedures we have for bringing the code into force, reviewing it, issuing it and consulting on it are all good and should work quite well. I hope that, in the light of that, there is no need to pursue those amendments.
Similarly, Amendments 55, 68 and 69—the latter being one of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—concern consulting various commissioners and “by and for” services on the duty to collaborate. I am very grateful to all the commissioners who have collaborated with us on developing these measures. We will publish draft guidance on this part of the Bill, but the Government’s position is that the overall framework we have for consultation and publishing guidance is already sufficient and appropriate.
Of course, the department will continue to engage with all national commissioners. I am particularly grateful for the support of the Victims’ Commissioner. I mentioned earlier the Children’s Commissioner, and I work very closely with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. They are all making a very significant contribution to a better system. Of course, we will continue to engage with a whole range of providers, including the “by and for” organisations. It is very much in the Government’s interests to consult and engage as widely as possible, so there is no reason not to.
Amendments 46 and 47 would require code compliance data to be shared with the Victims’ Commissioner. We have put forward a number of amendments to make the central role of the Victims’ Commissioner clear. I hope these are sufficient to place the Victims’ Commissioner at the heart and centre of the system, remembering that they already have existing and separate powers to issue reports and recommendations, and, under this Bill, the agencies have to respond to them.
This brings me to the important subject of code training in Amendments 34 and 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Russell. He is rightly concerned about this and has emphasised it throughout. I do not at all hide behind this fact, but if you believe in devolution—and we have 43 different police forces, different local authorities and 43 police and crime commissioners—you have to accept a certain degree of difference in the way those authorities operate. That is inherent in any devolved system. None the less, it is of fundamental importance that front-line staff are adequately trained to support victims of all crimes. That is why I can and do commit to using the statutory guidance to be issued under Clause 11 to set a clear expectation that agencies should have adequate training on the code so that staff know what the code is, can inform victims of their entitlements under it and do their job in a way that complies with it.
The Government are of the view that legislation is not the right place for such matters, given the level of operational detail required and the diverse requirements of the various organisations delivering the code. However, we appreciate that there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that training not only exists but is effective. I believe we can achieve the right balance by committing to prescribing in the regulations that bodies must collect and share information on the training they have in place to ensure that the code is delivered effectively as part of the delivery assessments within the compliance framework.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The Minister mentioned that he works very closely with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. Given what I said about her experience that, for training, the statutory guidance which is part of the Domestic Abuse Act is very inconsistent, despite being statutory guidance, will he undertake to go back to her and explore in more detail what she has experienced since the Act was passed and see whether any lessons can be learned that can be applied immediately to this Bill?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am quite happy to accept the noble Lord’s invitation to have a conversation with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to explore her experience and see whether it is transferable to what we are discussing here.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hesitated to intervene in this debate, but with the leave of the House I will add a thought for the Minister. Keeping training up to date is important because the understanding of the issues is developing quite dramatically. Nobody would have identified the acronym VAWG not that long ago and our understanding of what comprises violence against women and girls, for instance, is developing very fast.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as always, made a very pertinent point: we must have up-to-date training. Both learning and knowledge in this area are developing very quickly. That is quite a challenge for the authorities, but we should meet it— I fully accept that. Of course, under the compliance framework, there are powers to issue non-compliance notices and to understand why agencies are falling down. Almost certainly, a lack of training will be an explanatory factor in underperformance, so that will be overseen by Ministers, the criminal justice agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who has pursued this matter doggedly. We have all received emails updating us on the discussions. I too look forward to what the Minister says. We all have our own horror stories of inappropriate translation and interpretation. I am sure that the Minister has from his career, too; it is a feature of life in courts and the wider criminal justice system. Nevertheless, I will listen with anticipation to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, talking of experiences, my abiding memory is of a case in the county court where the interpreter opened the proceedings by telling the judge that he was deaf. Matters deteriorated from there.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, very much for her Amendment 13. The Government recognise that victims must be confident that the criminal justice process will be accessible to them so that they can participate effectively, regardless of their first language. We think that details of the specialist support services are better in the code, but I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive engagement on this issue.
As she is aware, we have been drafting strengthening content for right 1 of the victims’ code, which is the right to understand and be understood, ahead of publicly consulting after this Bill has received Royal Assent. This strengthened wording makes it clear that victims are entitled to access interpreting and translation services from qualified professionals. “Qualified” and “professionals” are the decisive words that the noble Baroness referred to. I hope that I have reassured her that we have heard and considered her arguments carefully and are committed to addressing their intent through the victims’ code. On that basis, I invite her not to press her amendment.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
Arbitration Bill [HL]
Lord Bellamy ExcerptsWednesday 27th March 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Other BusinessRead Full debate Arbitration Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Arbitration Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 7-I Marshalled list for Special Public Bill Committee - (25 Mar 2024)
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment does not change the effect of the provision, and follows comments from respondents to the Committee’s call for evidence that the omitted words are unnecessary and cause confusion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 to Clause 1, I extend my thanks and appreciation first to the Law Commission for all the work that has gone into the preparation of this Bill and secondly to the many stakeholders who submitted evidence to the Special Public Bill Committee, as well as all those who have assisted us throughout this Committee process. Although the submissions have been most carefully considered, in the event the Bill is little changed from the version submitted and prepared by the Law Commission.
None the less, the process has been, in the Government’s view, most valuable. We have thoroughly reviewed the Arbitration Act 1996, which has provided our arbitral framework for some quarter of a century and has underpinned the foremost position that we enjoy as a destination for international arbitration. I hope that the Committee and all concerned will accept that we now have a thorough review of the 1996 Act, which is a most important advance in maintaining an up-to-date and effective procedure for arbitration, especially international arbitration, in this country.
Clause 1 provides certainty beyond doubt that the law governing the arbitration agreement will be the law of the seat, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. By inserted Section 6A(2), any law chosen to govern the main contract does not count as an express choice of law to govern the arbitration agreement. In the Government’s view, that is a much clearer approach than that provided by the common law, notably through the Supreme Court’s decision in Enka v Chubb.
Members of the Committee will be aware that there has been thoughtful input from stakeholders to the Committee on whether the default rule in Clause 1 should be further improved on. Subject to one change, and having carefully considered those views, the Government’s position is that Clause 1 should not be further amended. The Law Commission’s policy was to reverse the decision in Enka v Chubb but not go further than that. The Law Commission’s draft, which was widely consulted on, seeks to balance the views of the sector while not being overly prescriptive.
The Government support preserving Clause 1 as it is, subject to one change, which is the subject of Amendment 1. Amendment 1 will remove the words “of itself” from new Section 6A(2), following observations that those words were likely to cause undue confusion, a point first raised at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and other noble Lords and further supported by stakeholders’ evidence to the Committee. Amendment 1 deletes those words and, subject to that amendment, I hope noble Lords will agree that Clause 1, as amended, should stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly make a few observations. First, I thank the clerk of the Committee, who has been invaluable to us all and extremely diligent in the work that he has done. One will have the opportunity no doubt to thank him again at a further stage of the Bill, but I wanted to put that on record. I thank the Committee Members, some of whom are absolutely expert in the law and some who found this an amusing and, I hope, interesting excursion into an important part of our law. I am also deeply grateful to the Minister and his private office for the assistance that they have given us.
The people who deserve the most thanks, however, are those—I prefer not to use the modern term “stakeholders”, because I do not think that it is an accurate description—who came to give evidence to us, who are expert in this highly technical area of the law. They gave us of their wisdom and their experience—not only practitioners, but those who ran the important institutions of arbitration and those who used it. We are immensely grateful for their diligence.
As the Minister said, this is an important Bill for arbitration. Having seen the achievement of the 1996 Act, particularly the work of Lord Mustill, Lord Steyn and Lord Saville in producing a readable document for those whose first language is not English, we have not been complacent. We have grasped the need for change and faced up to the increasingly severe competition for this desirable legal and dispute resolution business. It has been particularly helpful to have had the input of the judges on at least one of the clauses in ensuring that we keep up with the tradition of expert judicial input into this highly technical area of the law. I also thank Professor Sarah Green and her team for their work. Although, as will become apparent, we have concentrated on one or two points, the vast bulk did not need any review by us or the experts who assisted us.
The first of those issues that we have to consider today relates to this amendment. Although other forms of wording were suggested, there cannot be any doubt as to the intention of Parliament. I hope that, if this matter is ever litigated in the future—and I hope that that never arises—there will not be the kind of misunderstanding that occurred in the course of the judgments in Enka about Parliament’s intention.
I want to raise one point. The Law Commission was not adverted to the issue in respect of arbitrations under treaties. This was raised with us at a time, unfortunately, when we had completed the taking of evidence. I still think that there is a difficult issue that needs to be confronted and I hope that, between now and Report, it can be. I am not persuaded at present that this is not an issue that needs addressing. However, as it came up at a late stage, and as the Bill needs to be progressed as soon as possible, it is something to which we can return on Report after those concerned in government have had a chance to take advice from experts in this area—they are simply not “stakeholders”, which is a term that I find discourteous, although I am sure that the Minister intended no discourtesy to people who spend their lives in this kind of business and who in this area are far more expert than the Law Commission itself.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I again associate myself and the Government with the thanks to everyone that have been enunciated this morning, particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his chairmanship of the Committee. One point that arises from the remarks that have been made is the question that was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the bilateral investment treaty. This was not raised during the Law Commission consultations, the written submissions that the Committee received or the oral evidence. It was raised after the 28-day period for taking evidence was completed. However, the Government are now seized of the point, are reflecting carefully on it and will provide an update as soon as they are in a position to take a view on what should happen next.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the Minister for his last remarks? It is a misfortune in the experience of those who are lawyers that sometimes someone only sees a point at the very last minute. It is not unusual and no one is to be criticised for it, but once a point is seen it must be put to rest. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, but I am deeply grateful for his further consideration of the matter.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to place this amendment before this Special Public Bill Committee. I am not highly experienced with such hybrid procedures and so, while I hope that your Lordships will guide me, you will be pleased to hear that I will also use brevity. I record my thanks and gratitude to the clerk and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for their help and guidance on this amendment.
This review of the Arbitration Act 1996 builds on its success. The UK has become a global centre of excellence and the proposed amendments to the existing arrangements are sensible and will help to strengthen this position. This amendment seeks to establish as an overarching statutory principle that the arbitral tribunals must confine themselves to resolving disputes that are proper subjects for arbitration and must not purport to make judgments or orders about other matters. It is enormously important that people who take an issue to arbitration do not find their rights affected by the system purporting to go outside the specific dispute between the parties and to resolve other legal rights or to interfere with the operation of statutes.
Even more importantly, arbitral tribunals must not purport to make orders that affect the rights of persons other than the parties to the dispute, such as family members. I will illustrate this point by means of an example. In certain parts of the Orthodox Jewish community there has developed a practice of parties to a divorce being encouraged, or even pressurised, by the religious court—or, as it is known, the Beth Din —handling the ritual side of the divorce to submit to the jurisdiction of the Beth Din by way of arbitration in relation to their financial affairs, and usually to vary a family court-agreed settlement. That in itself is questionable, as the Beth Din is not best placed to adjudicate on these matters, particularly because it has regularly been used as a way of allowing the delivery of the Jewish divorce, or “get”, as it is known, by the man to become a bargaining chip in the wider financial issues between the parties, and there is no provision in religious law for involvement in such issues during the ritual of divorce.
The process becomes particularly objectionable when issues such as access to children, which are not within the range of matters that an arbitral tribunal should be looking at in any event, are brought into consideration, leading to the parties asking the courts to agree to a consent order that risks allowing the children’s welfare, which should be the paramount consideration, being subordinated to the demands of the husband in relation to delivery of the get—in effect, allowing a recalcitrant husband to blackmail children out of their statutory protections.
This is just one example of ways in which religious or other arbitral tribunals may purport to exceed their jurisdiction. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm from the Dispatch Box today that it is a fundamental principle of the law of arbitration that arbitral tribunals should confine themselves strictly to the financial dispute between the parties and not make orders about, or allow themselves to be influenced by, other matters.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment and his remarks. The Government are entirely clear that arbitration tribunals should confine themselves to their jurisdiction and to matters properly subject to that arbitration. That is clear from the Arbitration Act 1996 itself, which provides a regime for the court to control the exercise by the arbitration tribunal of its jurisdiction. I do not think I need to run through the various sections of the Act, but it is perfectly plain that it is a fundamental principle of the Arbitration Act that arbitral tribunals should not exceed their jurisdiction. The Government take that obligation extremely seriously.
I confirm at the Dispatch Box, as the noble Lord requested, that the Government’s view is that arbitration tribunals should confine themselves strictly to the matters subject to the arbitration. That is a most important and serious obligation that must be strictly observed. If there is evidence that that principle is not being observed, any such information should be drawn to public attention. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that court rules within subsection (3C) restricting the raising of new grounds for objection, the consideration of new evidence or the rehearing of evidence must provide that the restriction is subject to the court ruling otherwise in the interests of justice.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 4 to 7 to Clause 11, which, effectively, enables certain procedural reforms to take place in procedures under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, where a party challenges an arbitral award before the court on the basis that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. The current approach to these challenges, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dallah v Pakistan, is that these challenges are by way of a full rehearing.
Clause 11 now amends Section 67 to confer a power for rules of court to allow the court to function in what may be described in a more proportionate way when it comes to consider cases under Section 67. In particular, rules of court will be able to provide that there should be no new grounds of objection and no new evidence before the court unless it was not reasonably possible to put these before the tribunal, and evidence should not be reheard by the court.
Regarding the amendments to Clause 11, as originally drafted, new subsection (3C)(c) was subject to the overriding “interests of justice”. The purpose of the amendments is essentially to provide that the concept of everything being subject to the interests of justice should be an overriding provision for all the paragraphs in new subsection (3C), not just the last one. Amendment 3 applies the saving, subject to the court ruling otherwise in the interests of justice, to all the court rules under new subsection (3C) which previously applied only to new subsection (3C)(c). Amendment 6 is consequential on that amendment.
Amendment 4 deals with a slightly different and technical point. It clarifies that the evidence mentioned in new subsection (3B)(b), on consideration of evidence not put before the tribunal, includes written evidence as well as oral evidence. The current drafting is not as clear as it should be because it uses the word “heard”, and it is not always clear that written evidence is evidence that is heard. This is a technical amendment that simply provides that the relevant provision applies to both written and oral evidence.
Amendment 7 adds language, in new subsection (3D), which makes clear that Clause 11 is not intended to and does not limit the generality of the power to make rules of court.
I hope those are relatively straightforward amendments that meet various points raised during the processes of the committee. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has said. I have one or two small points to add. The first concerns his allusion to the need to be clear. We heard earlier from him and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about how important the Bill is to maintaining our competitive position in international circles in the field of arbitration. It is in that context that clarity is crucial.
When potential parties to arbitration determine where they are going to have the arbitration, which law will apply and all those questions, clarity is to be highly valued. In that context, it seemed to me, to the committee and to all the experts who gave evidence to us that it should be clear that the court would remain the ultimate arbiter of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. That was part of the need for these amendments.
To deal with the point about rules of court first, and slightly out of order, the potential problem with the Bill as drawn was that new subsections (3B) and (3C) of the new Section 67, which provided for rules of court, could have appeared too prescriptive. They could have made it look as though that is what the rules of court will say, and that would have two damaging effects. First, it could have been seen to limit the power of the rules committee to set up fair rules in the first place.
Another point that certainly seems important to me is that the rules committee has always had the power to change and adapt rules in the light of experience. If the statute governing the powers of the rules committee looks too prescriptive, that power to change and adapt could be threatened. An amendment along the lines of Minister’s Amendment 7, making it clear that the power of the rules committee would not be limited, is therefore very desirable.
The other point that the noble and learned Lord has made is that there should always be the power for, and indeed an obligation on, the court to act in accordance with the interest of justice. The committee felt, and I feel, that where the interests of justice were mentioned only in new subsection (3C)(c), that suggested that it would not be applicable to new subsection (3C)(a) and (b). The overriding provision in Amendment 3 that
“subject to the court ruling otherwise in the interests of justice”
applies to all three paragraphs was extremely desirable. It also seems important that that renders the clause as a whole entirely consistent with the overriding objective to deal with cases justly by making it clear that that applies consistently with the subsection as drafted and adds to the clarity for those coming to this legislation afresh and determining whether English law will retain its pre-eminent position in the world of arbitration.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support for these amendments, which I commend to the Committee.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that the evidence mentioned in subsection (3C)(b) includes written evidence as well as oral evidence.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
This clause seeks to remove the special provisions in relation to domestic arbitration from the Act, and it is entirely right to do so. However, it gives rise to a question that needs to be addressed, particularly because the broad powers of the court are being removed in respect of domestic arbitration. It is therefore opportune to use this occasion to raise the issue that has come before us. It was raised at Second Reading in relation to the problems of fraud, corruption and other related issues in arbitration.
We were greatly assisted by the evidence that we received on this in the light of two recent decisions: that of Mr Justice Knowles in The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Ltd, which has won worldwide praise; and that of Mr Justice Butcher in Contax Partners Inc BVI v Kuwait Finance House, where he was asked to enforce an award that was completely fabricated.
My own experience means that I would be extremely surprised if this was an extensive problem, but there may be others who take the view that there is a little more to this. Whatever the view, this issue really has to be examined. We are particularly grateful to what Spotlight on Corruption told us in two submissions; they are valuable papers that deserve close scrutiny. The organisation highlighted the problems by reference to some other cases and put forward some solutions. What is important from the point of view of London, and indeed the rest of the UK, is that it drew attention to the position of other states, included information about important international arbitration centres such as Singapore and Sweden, and the work being done by the ICC task force.
We cannot afford to be complacent about this issue. Plainly, it was not examined by the Law Commission and cannot therefore be gone into in the Bill, but there are issues. How do we mitigate the risk that has been seen to arise? What, if any, duties ought to be imposed on arbitrators? These are extremely difficult questions and I hope this is a matter that His Majesty’s Government will consider.
My only suggestion is that this might be best done through the way in which arbitration law was originally brought up to date in this country: a departmental committee. That brings the practical expertise of people who really are involved in this, and the Government would have the benefit of it costing nothing because the private sector is always happy to help on such matters. I hope consideration will be given to this. That is merely a suggestion as to how it should be done, but it really is something that I believe should be.
The second issue that I want to raise is the way that the Special Public Bill Committee works. It has worked well in this Bill, and in another where I had the honour of chairing the committee, but there are three points that it would be useful to examine. The first is the period of time that the committee has to review the evidence. It is extremely discourteous when the Law Commission has taken, say, two years to review a subject if we tell all the people who want to say something that they have 14 days in which to do so. That does not seem an entirely fair balance. I am not saying we should veer away from 28 days, but we ought to be allowed to have a pause to give people time—not what the Government give people and are criticised for, which is six weeks, but, say, three weeks. We should be slightly more generous in our timetable. That would enable us to focus, see what people are concerned about and get witnesses to come without disrupting the lives of busy people.
Secondly, in these technical areas—some highly technical areas are coming along the road as we move to the greater use of digitalisation and artificial intelligence and the effect this has on legal matters—we have to get right the time at which detailed technical expertise is brought to bear. It is sometimes a mistake to see these areas of the law as being a bit like the rest of it. This Bill and the one relating to digital documentation are highly technical, and it is a question of getting expert help at the right stage before the Committee meets.
Thirdly, there ought to be greater clarity about what a Special Public Bill Committee can do by way of looking at the scope of a Bill, what is in it and what is and is not policy without in any way imperilling a procedure that enables us to get Bills on to the statute book quickly. We now have some experience of these Bills. Given the important question of getting our law right on adjustments that have to be made to face the age of digitalisation and artificial intelligence, it might be wise to have a rethink about the precise way in which this procedure works. It has not caused a problem due to the Minister’s helpful attitude towards this whole process, for which I am most grateful, but I foresee that there could be difficulties if we do not think of the problems that have arisen before more come down the line, which will be vital to the prosperity of the United Kingdom.
Having made those remarks, I do not wish to press my opposition to the incorporation of Clause 15 any further. In fact, I wholly welcome that clause as bringing about a much-needed improvement to the law.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in view of the noble and learned Lord’s indication that he is not pressing for the removal of these clauses—which, incidentally, have never been brought into effect—I will say a word or two about the important underlying issue that he raised about corruption. This was raised in the Nigeria and Kuwait cases that he referred to. Those cases revealed that there had been serious issues of corruption in the conduct of the arbitrations, and it is greatly to the credit of the Commercial Court of England and Wales that that was properly exposed and that, in the end, the system was seen to work well.
However, it is important that arbitrators navigating complex cross-border disputes are equipped and empowered to safeguard their process against any misuse or abuse and that everyone perceives our jurisdiction as one that facilitates clean and robust arbitration and is not tainted in any way by corruption. Certainly, it has been most important for the committee to have received evidence about that.
On that issue, I am aware that the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR has commissioned a task force
“to explore current approaches to allegations or signs of corruption in disputes and to articulate guidance for arbitral tribunals on how to deal with such occurrences”.
I have written to the principal arbitral institutions seeking their assistance in this matter: the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the International Chamber of Commerce, the London Court of International Arbitration, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association and the Grain and Feed Trade Association, as well as the Law Society and the Bar Council, many of whose members will be arbitrators or acting as counsel in arbitration. I have asked in particular what measures they have in place to mitigate the risk of corruption in arbitration, whether more should be done in the sector to mitigate corruption in arbitration, the best way to proceed and how the Ministry of Justice and the Government could support the sector’s efforts. Once we have received the responses, the Government will come to a view on what further action, if any, is needed.
Those matters are in train and this is an issue that the Government take seriously, because the reputation of London is crucial. I think that reputation is intact but we cannot be too careful in this important matter. I hope that that goes some way to reassure the noble and learned Lord that this matter has been properly raised, is on the radar and that action is being taken.
The noble and learned Lord also asked about the procedures of the Special Public Bill Committee, the timelines and the framework for dealing with that matter. Those points are well taken. I think it is a matter for the House authorities rather than the Government, so no doubt the House authorities will reflect on the points that have been made. The Government will support any sensible changes to the Special Public Bill Committee procedure in due course.
Prison Officer Pension Age
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the cost to public funds of bringing prison officer pension age into line with that of firefighters, the police and armed services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government currently have no plans to change the pensionable age of prison officers, which is set under the Civil Service-wide pension scheme. Any estimate of the cost of doing so would require complex actuarial calculations to determine the higher contributions that would need to be met by the employer and by current and future members.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for that reply. Is it correct that Treasury Ministers are responsible for setting the pension age and not MoJ Ministers? Is it also correct that for a newly recruited prison officer, the pension age is 68 years old? Is this policy not really one of “lock until you drop”?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, on the first question, the Treasury has overall responsibility for setting pension arrangements for the Civil Service; that is not an MoJ responsibility, and my noble friend correctly makes that point. As for “lock until you drop”, can we please distinguish between the age at which you get a full pension and the age at which you can retire, which is something quite different? A prison officer does not have to work to the age of 68 to qualify for any pension; he can retire earlier on a smaller pension and then, unlike most situations in the armed services, he can return to work—in a less front-line role, typically. He will continue to work and earn a pension, as well as the other pension he has already accrued. It is not at all clear that prison officers under the present scheme are worse off than they would be if they were in the armed services, especially given the higher contributions the latter have to make.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, prison officers are, unfortunately, banned from taking industrial action and the Government are, in my opinion, exploiting this unjustifiable restriction. Lifting the pension age to 68 is a classic example of this, and looking after violent, overcrowded and understaffed prisons is not a job for older workers. Does the Minister agree that this policy, which is “lock until you drop”, is reckless, dangerous and plain wrong?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government are unable to agree with the somewhat colourful language used by the noble Lord. The Government have the highest regard for our prison officers, who stand on the front line in prisons and are some of our finest public servants.
However, it is as well to remember that the pension contributions paid by prison officers are much lower than those paid by other uniformed services—between 4% and 6% for prison officers, as against 12% to 15% for other services. These days, if you are a young person in your 20s or early 30s entering the prison service, you are not necessarily thinking about what you are going to get when you are 68. You may be more than satisfied with a lower pension contribution now.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, undoubtedly, people want prisons, but they should not forget about the people who have to run them. It is a very dangerous profession. There was a settlement in 2016 which, unfortunately, because it was wrapped up in other settlements, was rejected by the prison officers. Last year, it was indicated that the Secretary of State would hold talks about talks with the Prison Officers’ Association, but there does not seem to have been much movement towards negotiations since then. Does the Minister agree that this section of the benefit—mainly pensions, including, if necessary, increased contributions—should be revived in the interests of these most hard-working servants of the state?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it was a great pity that the arrangements negotiated in 2016 were rejected by the Prison Officers’ Association in 2017. Since then, Ministers have done their best to reopen the matter. As my noble friend Lord Attlee said in opening, it is a matter ultimately for the Treasury. The Treasury is currently besieged by many calls on its resources, including in the pensions sphere, with very large sums of public money being taken up by the McCloud Remedy, which I can explain to noble Lords in more detail—if your Lordships would remain awake. The overall position is that, of course, this matter should continue to be pursued.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, in this House, 68 may seem only early to mid-career, but the general public will be worried at the thought of prison officers of that age carrying on in a very difficult and dangerous job. As part of a broader programme of prison reform, should the Government and the service not be thinking of allowing an earlier retirement age and using the experience gained in other parts of the prison and probation service in the proper through-treatment of prisoners?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I take the point the noble Lord is making. When I had the honour to join this House, I was told that life begins at 70, which has a certain amount of truth in it these days. What the noble Lord suggests is very close to what is currently happening. A typical position is for an older officer to step back from front-line duties, be re-employed by the Prison Service and continue to earn a pensionable salary, as well as having his earlier pension. I am not completely convinced that that is not a perfectly sensible solution to the problem.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that our job is not like the job of prison officer? We do not face the same danger as they do on a daily basis. He described prison officers as the finest public servants, and of course, we agree, but does he not think that the Government’s policy is short-sighted? One of the criticisms that the Prison Officers’ Association continually expresses to us is the lack of retention of experienced prison officers. Retention is the key to maintaining prison officer morale. Will the Government look at this policy again?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government will certainly continue to look at this policy. As the noble Lord says, the job of a prison officer is absolutely not like our job. On retention and short-sightedness, the Government currently have no evidence that the pension arrangements as such are affecting initial recruitment or are a factor in retention. There are many factors that affect retention, but pensions do not seem to be very significant in that package. The fact that lower contributions are paid is very attractive to a young man, who does not necessarily worry about what will happen when he is 68.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this situation goes back to the report of my noble friend Lord Hutton back in the early years of the last decade, in which he specifically mentioned that police officers should have a lower retirement age. The issue the noble and learned Lord needs to address is that, surely, the comparable profession for prison officers is police officers. The differential in respect of police officers, who fully merit their early retirement, applies equally to prison officers. Mentioning pension arrangements for the Armed Forces in the same breath illustrates the hole that the Minister is digging for himself.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, my understanding is that the 2011 Hutton report to which the noble Lord refers made a distinction between certain uniformed services—the Armed Forces themselves, the fire service and the police—and everybody else. Part of the problem we are discussing has occurred because the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, put prison officers in the latter category, so they were brought into the general Civil Service pension scheme that came in in 2015, which, in fact, is quite a good scheme. For the reasons I have already given, the Government do not accept that prison officers are as badly off as is sometimes claimed. On the other hand, the Government are perfectly prepared to continue to consider and reflect on the points that have been made.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2024
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 February be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, in October 2023, my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in the other place that the Government would review the use of recall to ensure that the prison system is working effectively and consider how to safely manage any risk posed by offenders, while not having people in prison any longer than necessary. That is the purpose of this statutory instrument.
Recall, as your Lordships know, is a preventive measure available to the Probation Service to bring an offender managed on licence in the community, following release from prison, back into custody. There are two kinds of recall. The first is known as fixed-term recall, which is for a period of 14 days if the offender’s sentence is less than 12 months, or of 28 days if they are serving a sentence of over 12 months. The other is standard recall, where offenders are recalled to prison and remain in custody until the end of their sentence, unless released earlier by the Parole Board.
Unfortunately, pressures on the Parole Board mean that it is sometimes quite a long time before a prisoner’s further release comes up for consideration. In the case of offenders already serving less than 12 months, the delays in the Parole Board might mean that it does not get round to considering their case before they are due for release anyway. This means that in the case of offenders serving less than 12 months, a recall is quite a severe consequence.
Between 2017 and 2023, the number of people in prison on recall rose by about 85%. In that period, there was a major decline in fixed-term recalls—20% in general and 27% for those offenders serving less than 12 months. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to rebalance that situation and mandate the use of fixed-term recall for lower-level offenders—those on less than 12 months, subject to certain exceptions that I will come to—so that they are automatically recalled for 14 days and then rereleased. Of course, they would then remain on licence until the end of their custodial period being served out in the community.
That is the essential purpose of the statutory instrument. I accept that it is against the general background of pressure on the prison estate at the moment but, in the Government’s view, this measure is fully justified in its own right, in fairness to offenders serving less than 12 months and as a way of rebalancing the system in the way I described.
As your Lordships know, probation can recall offenders if their risk while on licence increases because they fail to keep in touch, do not observe the curfew, have been under the influence of alcohol if the conditions forbid alcohol, et cetera. However, as I said, for those serving short sentences, the reality is that one recall might mean that they serve the rest of their sentence, are held in custody for too long, and when they come out they are not on licence as their licence has finished. It is much better, in general, for the short-sentence offenders to remain on licence when they are released back into the community for the balance of the sentence period.
The order will apply to lower-level offenders aged 18 and over serving custodial sentences of fewer than 12 months and assessed as requiring recall. It will not apply to the more serious offenders who are managed under what is known as MAPPA at levels 2 and 3, or those who have been charged with a further serious offence under Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Act 2020.
As my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, updated the Houses the other day in their Statements on “Prisons and Probation: Foreign National Offenders”, we are preparing the Probation Service to be ready for increased demand, introducing changes to operating procedures that will allow front-line staff to maximise supervision of the most serious offenders and to deal with intervention and engagement at as early a stage as possible.
I take the opportunity to express our deep gratitude to all those working in the criminal justice system, including in prisons, probation and the police. They deserve enormous credit for their commitment. They are under heavy pressure and managing magnificently. I hope that this statutory instrument will further ease that burden and rebalance the system in the way I hope I have described. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I can sort of see the rationale for this, but it is completely misguided. Every time the Government talk about tougher sentences and being tougher on crime and the causes of crime, they start packing out the prisons. Of course, there is now no capacity. This is a rather cynical move to clear out the prisoners so that we can pack other people in.
I have a much better idea, which I will come to in a moment, but I do not understand why the Government are wafting this statutory instrument through yet find it impossible to do something fairly fast for IPP prisoners. I would like an explanation from the Government.
Part of the problem is that we tend to send people who committed low-level drug abuse crimes to prison. I suggest a constructive way forward, which is that we automatically release anyone in prison for low-level drugs offences, because they are less dangerous to other people and really only dangerous to themselves. Please could we have some rationale about the prison system, which is crumbling with this Government and could be better?
Lord Bird (CB)
I want to make a few comments. The renaissance should actually start somewhere else. It should start—I have certain experience with this—with all the naughty boys who later become naughtier boys and men; they should be addressed and supported. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and I have talked about this. What we are largely doing with our young now, although there are some wonderful projects and initiatives, is warehousing them. When I was a young person in the custodial system, if I wanted to climb Mount Everest then, as long as I did not rob an old lady on the way, they were happy to help me. They were happy to help me to do O-levels and that kind of thing.
We have to stop just responding to the problem as it is. There will always be a need to respond to an emergency, but you have to back it up with prevention. That means dealing with our children, largely from the same class that I come from, who fail at school. When I go to Pentonville, the first thing I ask is, “How many people did well at school?”, and only a couple of people put up their hands. The rot starts early on. These children are inheritors of poverty.
Until we have some thinking, we cannot deal with the emergency just by dealing with the emergency. We have to grow up and start creating a system that, first of all, helps the children who come through it. At the same time, we have to look at the social engineering that is necessary to stop producing children who fail at school and whose only inheritance is poverty.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on his intervention. Personally, I think it is full of common sense. We know that a large number of people in prison, particularly in the male estate, are dyslexic. That almost tells you all you need to know about why they are in prison—they have fallen through the various protections. That is somewhat outside the scope of today’s debate, but it is a point well made that all Governments should be thinking about profoundly. We must consider how to tackle this problem as early as we can through a different way of approaching the social problems that lead to the situation that we are in. I thank the noble Lord for those comments.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her comments too. I hope this is not a cynical move, although I entirely see the potential contradiction in some ways that we are involved in. The Government’s general policy, and probably that of most Governments, is to try to be tougher on the more serious offences but to think harder about how to tackle the less serious ones. Today, we are talking about the less serious offences.
We will come to IPP prisoners on Report of the Victims and Prisoners Bill—we discussed it the other night. Automatic release for low-level drug offenders is a very creative idea; it is some way away from the thinking of the present Government, but is another thing to put on our list of things to think about, if I may put it that way to the noble Baroness in thanking her for her intervention.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who, with great distinction, discharged the office that I now hold, so I regard myself as his grandson in a way. His approach with my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham was no doubt very sensible at the time but, as all Governments know, one has to deal with the political framework that one finds oneself in. In putting forward this order, the present Government are, I hope, producing a practical solution to a very pressing problem.
Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that support for the Probation Service—perhaps even its renaissance—is something devoutly to be wished. We have to do what we can, as we can, with the resources we have, but the overall goal is, I think, one that most Members of this House share. So, unless there are any other points I have not dealt with, I now commend this order.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Lord Bellamy ExcerptsTuesday 12th March 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 View all Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (8 Mar 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will first briefly recap some basic points that apply equally to the second and fourth groups of amendments that we will come to.
First, this Government recognise the highly regrettable history of this particular sentence. The Lord Chancellor himself has described IPP sentences as
“a stain on our justice system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 592.]
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, rightly said, the question is what should be done. I will briefly summarise, to encapsulate our debate, what the Government think should be done.
The Government are making some very determined efforts to mitigate the situation of IPP offenders who are still subject to a sentence that was abolished in 2012. To bring noble Lords up to date, there were originally approximately 8,100 people subject to these sentences. Of those people, as of last December 1,227 had never been released, 1,625 had been released and later recalled, and there were still about 3,000 on licence in the community. Currently, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, an offender cannot apply to the Parole Board to have their licence terminated until 10 years after first release.
Taking the released and then recalled population first, this is a challenge because that population is slowly rising. The major statutory change in Clause 48 will reduce the qualifying period before the offender becomes eligible for licence termination from 10 years to three years from first release, with a presumption of termination after three years and an automatic termination two years thereafter—provided that the offender can pass two years in the community without further recall. That is, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, a huge change and a major achievement for the Government to be proposing. It should substantially mitigate the problem of prisoners being released and then recalled, which we will come to in more detail as this debate continues.
Regarding the second cohort—perhaps the first, depending on your point of view—of those who have never been released, most of these people have come up before the Parole Board, which is responsible for deciding on their release. In many cases, this has happened many times and the Parole Board has decided that it is not safe to release them as the risk to the public is too great. What is the Government’s approach to that problem? Spurred on by the 2022 report of the JSC, to which I pay tribute, the Government are developing a robust, coherent and detailed action plan in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including the families, with the aim that each prisoner has a tailored sentence plan, appropriate support and clear objectives to work towards eventual release.
This last cohort is difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has just pointed out because, aside from having committed very serious offences, many suffer from trauma, mental health issues, substance issues and so on. However, the Government are determined to see this cohort further reduced and to get rid of the idea that there is no hope. In the Government’s view, no one has given up on the IPP prisoners who have never been released. They have to be worked on. That is a hard task, but one that the Government—any Government—should take on.
For example, the number of those released has been reducing over the last two years at roughly 200 per year. There are now 200 of these prisoners in open conditions who are being prepared for further release. It is not as if nothing is going on or as if things are just vegetating and no one cares. The Government are very focused on doing something about this most difficult cohort. That is the overall framework, which I hope your Lordships will view, despite the difficulties of the past, as something of a new beginning for the future.
With that background, I turn to Amendments 149 to 151 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. The effect of these would be that, if the Parole Board refused to terminate the licence at the new three-year point, the offender would have the right to apply annually to the Parole Board for a licence determination. As the Government understand it, the offender would be in the community rather than waiting out the two-year period, which results in the automatic termination of the licence. The offender would be able to apply to the Parole Board for termination after one year.
The Government recognise that released offenders in many cases need better support and have accepted all the recommendations to that effect in the recent report of the Chief Inspector of Probation on the recalls of IPP prisoners. However, the Government are not at present persuaded of the need for Amendments 149 to 151, on the following basis. If the offender has applied and the Parole Board, after three years, does not terminate the licence at that point, it does not seem to the Government unreasonable to expect the offender to spend two years in the community with the incentive of the certainty of licence termination at the end of that period. This amendment would enable the offender to make an interim application at the end of year four. That would impose further resource costs on the Probation Service and Parole Board because reports have to be prepared, hearings have to be convened and so forth. It would necessarily take the Parole Board several months to process that application.
We have come back several times in this debate to the pressures on the Parole Board and the time these applications take. It appears to the Government that, even if you could apply after year four rather than waiting until the end of year five, there is probably only a marginal gain for the offender. The Government are not at the moment persuaded on these amendments, although the Government continue to be in listening mode on this part of the Bill, as on every other part of the Bill.
Amendments 152 and 153, also moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, address what one could call in shorthand “questionable recalls”. I think there are two sorts of recall that we should be thinking about. The amendments suggest the possibility of the Parole Board disregarding a recall for the purpose of calculating the two-year period. Perhaps I may first clarify what is considered to be the existing position. If a recall is based on a fundamental mistake of fact—for example, the probation officer thinks that the offender has missed an appointment but the offender is in hospital because of a road accident the previous day—the Lord Chancellor considers that he already has the power in such a clear case to treat the recall as a nullity, as never having happened. That is a relatively clear case and I respectfully suggest that Amendment 152 is unnecessary.
The situation envisaged by Amendment 153 is effectively a challenge to the judgment call made by the probation officer about the recall. Technically it is a decision by the Secretary of State, but in practice of course it depends on the report by the probation officer. Amendment 153 would require the validity of that recall—the “appropriateness” of that recall, to use the word in the amendment—to be considered by the Parole Board and treated as a nullity if the board then considers that the recall decision was not appropriate. Although the Government understand the thinking behind the amendment, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found, in both 2020 and much more recently in 2023, that in practice HMPPS recall decisions are very largely appropriate.
At present, the Parole Board does not have any power to adjudicate on the appropriateness of the recall; its task is to decide on the issue of public protection and whether the offender is safe to release. For that purpose, the Parole Board will typically have much wider and more detailed information than was available to the individual probation officer faced with the recall decision. Amendment 153 would, however, turn the Parole Board process into an appeal from the recall decision and require the Parole Board, in effect, to second-guess what it would have done had it been the probation officer with the information then available to the probation officer.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I should like to better understand this part of the argument. When the noble and learned Lord said he is satisfied that in most cases recall is appropriate, did he mean recall in general or recall in IPP cases in particular? Secondly, when he was discussing the difference between decisions on executive recall on the one hand and dangerousness and public protection on the other, did he not think that there was a relationship between the two? When one is considering dangerousness, one might have a rather different view of what is required in relation to public protection if one or more recalls were inappropriate because they were for non-criminal, minor conduct that at no point presented a danger to the public?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. As to whether I was speaking of IPP specifically, I cannot off the top of my head recall whether the 2020 work was specifically in relation to IPP, but certainly the 2023 work, which is the most recent and the most valuable and which I highly recommend everyone to read, was specifically in relation to IPP when the Government were considering what to do following the JSC report when concern was expressed that recalls might be being made inappropriately. That inspector’s report took a sample of recalls, studied them very carefully; it was thought that a small number were questionable but that the vast majority were appropriate on the basis of the information that the probation officer had at the time.
Up to a point, the circumstances of the recall are part of a general picture of the dangerousness of the offender—I accept that. But the real point is that, when the Parole Board comes to consider public protection, it will have much more information, very often much more up-to-date and fuller, than the information that was before the probation officer at the time, who might well have to take a decision in an emergency on very limited information, but because of the risk, as they see it, to public protection. So it is very difficult, in the Government’s view, to give the Parole Board power to go all the way back and say, “This was inappropriate”. However, having said that, I would like to come back to the question of recall when we get to Amendments 154 and 168, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It is a question of executive re-release on recall, which might be another way of approaching that problem. So that is the Government’s position.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister telling us that it is inconceivable that the Government would want to increase the licence period?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I do not know that one would use the word “inconceivable”. The Government do not see any prospect of that happening at the moment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this too has been a wide-ranging debate and more wide-ranging than that on the first group. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken because there are a number of amendments in this group, all of which push in the right direction. They are helping the Government to do what they say that they want to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, moved Amendment 154, which is consequential on Amendment 168. That addresses what he called a lacuna and creates a power that mirrors the powers that the Secretary of State has to release prisoners serving a fixed-term licence. This is a very practical way of proceeding, and we support his amendment. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, in her characteristic way, asked why, if the Executive have the authority to recall, they cannot be given the authority to release—a very succinct way of summing up the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his Amendment 161, is effectively reversing the burden of proof for IPP prisoners. He described it as a nudge to the Parole Board and discussed how significant that nudge would be, but it is a welcome nudge, none the less. It has the historic credentials of being supported originally by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is a welcome amendment.
We then had the very interesting intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, reflecting on the 2012 LASPO Act and that the provision was already in that Act and had just not been enacted by the Government. I remember the 2012 Act and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, taking it through the House as part of the coalition Government. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to those points because it would be very difficult not to acknowledge the power of the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords on Amendment 161.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke to Amendments 159 and 160. He made interesting points about the independent scrutiny panel and other ways of pushing this in the same direction. We would support those amendments as well.
Perhaps the most moving speech was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, when she read the email from the man who eventually killed himself. That amendment was about aftercare. As she said, we have damaged these people and we owe it to them to give them the extra support.
It was in that spirit that my noble friend Lady Blower, on her Amendment 164, spoke powerfully in favour of independent mentors, a pilot scheme and extra support in various ways. She was very powerfully supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hamwee. This seems to be a very practical way of supporting people. We have heard that the level of recall is increasing. This should be a mechanism of getting recall down, with people who are coming out of custody less likely to be recalled if they are properly supported.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. There have been a lot of practical suggestions and amendments. We want to encourage all of them, to get out of this Bill a package of measures to protect the public as appropriate and to move away from this sentencing regime, which has been so unfortunate for the last decade.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, the Government agree entirely that our joint objective is to arrive at a package of measures that sufficiently protects the public while dealing with the problems of this existing sentencing regime. That is our overall objective.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier invited us to be bold. I suggest that the Government are already being bold in reducing the licence period to three years in circumstances where even the JSC recommended five years. We have already gone further than that very distinguished committee suggested. I do not think that anyone could accuse the present Lord Chancellor of a lack of determination or hard work. To continue the analogy used by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier of us plodding through treacle, we are really trying to find sensible answers to very difficult questions.
In addition, on the general point of hope and certainty and the very tragic case of Matthew, who committed suicide after he had been in the community for 10 years, as I said earlier these government amendments deal with that point. The “three plus two years” have an automatic determination that gives hope and certainty. That is a very large step forward. It is not a total answer to the problem, but I invite noble Lords to take account of the substantial progress that we are making.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend and his colleagues in the department, including the present Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, who I suspect would privately agree with everyone who has spoken so far on these amendments. As the Government are to be congratulated on the very bold and significant steps that they have taken, as the Minister quite rightly says, and as, to my amazement, we have not had any widespread public reaction to it or even any awareness of it, is there a chance that he could sneak one or two further changes through in the concluding stages of this Bill? I am sorry to talk in such Dog and Duck terms, but that is the political judgment that we all are seeking to make. Everybody wants to get rid of the worst evils of the old IPP sentence.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham for inviting us to foregather at the Dog and Duck and consider what more can be done. I venture to suggest—hint is too weak a word—that there are things that we can still do. We may not be able to go as far as some of the amendments; in a moment, I will explain why the Government do not yet feel able—to my great personal regret—to accept the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan. I will come to that in a moment. Let us look at what we think might be done and might be achievable.
I will take first Amendments 154 and 168, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. We have touched on the problem of recalls. We have noted that the Government are trying to reduce the delays in the Parole Board in dealing with recalls, which is one of the major problems. These amendments propose that the Secretary of State should have the power of executive re-release, which applies to fixed, determinate sentences. That is a power which in that context—forgive the jargon —is now referred to as a risk-assessed recall review, which is, in effect, a process for executive re-release. While the Secretary of State must have overriding regard to the need for public protection, the Government can see force in the amendments proposed by the noble Lord.
As I said earlier, those amendments might achieve by a different route the result of the amendments earlier proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in order to deal with the problem of inappropriate or other circumstances in which it would be right to exercise an executive power to re-release. If I may say it between ourselves—all this feels within the family, as it were, but of course we are talking to the entire outside world—a particular problem that arises from time to time is where the offender in the community is arrested for a new offence; he is then recalled and the police do not prosecute. What happens then? That is a classic practical problem that the power of an executive re-release might address; I make no promises or commitments, but the Government wish to engage further on this aspect as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and supported by other noble Lords, and will give further consideration to it prior to Report. That is that.
Amendment 158, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in relation to prisoners imprisoned under the so-called “two strikes” legislation under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, is a bit more complicated. As I understand it, although that legislation was abolished in 2005, similar legislation was reintroduced in 2012 and is now to be found in Section 283 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which provides for a life sentence for a second listed offence, the listed offences in question being set out in Schedule 15 to that Act. In terms of sentences of prisoners who are under some sort of two-strike legislation, we are dealing not just with the old 2005 cohort but with others as well. How we deal with those prisoners and in particular what would justify differential treatment of the various kinds of life prisoners we have seems to the Government an important and large question. The Government’s present view is that this problem is somewhat outside the scope of the Bill. That is not to say that we should not continue to consider it. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, should be congratulated on raising the issue and putting it further on the radar, and there would be no objection to continuing a dialogue on it, but in the context of the present Bill, it may be too far to go to deal with anything other than IPP. We will have to see, but, at the moment, the Government are not persuaded that that could come within the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Unlike other prisoners, they may have been up before the Parole Board many times, but this is long after their tariff has ended and the sentence originally given was handed out to them. That is quite a distinction from other prisoners. The suggestion that they are a particularly difficult group to manage because they keep going before the Parole Board slightly misses why they have become a difficult or different group. The main thing is that they would have been released if they were any other group of prisoners, yet they have to go to the Parole Board to say that they are safe and risk-free maybe five or six years after their tariff has ended. That is why people see the burden of proof being in the direction it is in. They also have to fulfil a range of courses and so on, which people are not convinced will even indicate that they are safe anyway, but we will get on to that. To the suggestion that we do not understand why anyone is raising this, it is because the set of circumstances for these prisoners is very different. That is why we are all here talking about it.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness is making, which effectively encapsulates the problem that we are up against: how do we protect the safety of the public on the one hand and, on the other, deal with the outstanding problem? I think the Government’s point is that to make it easier to release those prisoners who are potentially most likely to cause harm is counterintuitive and unacceptable from the point of view of public safety.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I did not suggest that they were more likely to cause harm. The argument is whether we accept that they are deemed dangerous and therefore cannot be let out through the Parole Board, because what deems them dangerous is a set of hoops that they have to go through and that do not necessarily indicate that they are dangerous. That is one of the difficulties with this. It is doublethink and double-talk.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as I have tried to say, the whole purpose of the action plan is to create a framework in which this cohort, properly managed, could progress to safe release, with sentence plans, psychological support, support from psychology services and other support towards a safe release. That is a better route than tinkering with the release test. I will not say it is exactly a legal quibble, but it is a bit of a legalism to be fiddling with the release test.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
The problem is that the Parole Board is made up of real-life men and women with a very heavy responsibility. There is an underlying fear about the consequences of ever releasing somebody who then goes on to commit some terrible crime. The reality is that they contemplate the appalling reaction that they would get in the media, the public inquiry that would condemn them and the destruction of their reputation if they ever moved to let out somebody who did something terrible. Ministers share the same reserve when it comes to undoing this.
The proposal to alter the burden of proof was designed to give a little encouragement, a little more courage and a little help to people in getting over that fear of the recriminations if they ever made a mistake. It would be an explanation that the Parole Board could give if it had let somebody out. Then, it could detain only those where it was satisfied that it could see that there was a risk from the person being released. That would make a great change to the numbers being released. At this stage, in the interests of justice, the risk to the public is one that we should contemplate as not as severe as everybody fears.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I see the force of the points being made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. I respectfully suggest that the fear of the media is not the driving force in the case of this Lord Chancellor or, if I may say so, his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State currently at the Dispatch Box. We are looking at the real question of public safety.
If I may ask it rhetorically, who speaks for Pauline Quinn? Admittedly, that was not an IPP case. Pauline Quinn was aged 73, was disabled and could not protect herself. She was brutally murdered by a convicted killer released on licence. I respectfully suggest that these risks are very difficult for any responsible Government to take, irrespective of what the media might say.
This raises another point. At the moment the Government are not convinced that this would make a significant difference, because the Parole Board, even under the revised test suggested by my noble friend Lord Moylan, would still have to be satisfied on the issue of the protection of the public. It is perfectly likely that one is simply raising false hopes. It does not change the process that the Parole Board has to go through to look at these very difficult individuals, who are very much at risk of harm and very difficult to manage in the community.
If you read the 2023 report from the Chief Inspector of Probation, you see how difficult it is to manage these individuals—those who have already been released, not the unreleased cohort. This is a very difficult area. At the moment the Government are not persuaded rightly or wrongly that it is a correct approach to make it easier to release dangerous people. That is the Government’s position, and I have explained it as best I can.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I want to ask the noble and learned Lord about the word “proportionate”. Is there an objection to that word? It is key, because it enables you, in judging safety, to take into account the responsibility of the state for what we have done to these people.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government’s position, frankly, is that the word “proportionate” causes more difficulties than it solves. It suggests that the test should be some sort of balance between the risk that this prisoner may present to the public and some sort of fairness or other consideration of the particular interests of that prisoner. The whole thrust of the Bill—it is not just the clauses that we are dealing with at the moment but Clauses 41 and 42—is to say that the public protection test is a public protection test: that is the only criterion. So the Government do not, I am afraid, accept that “proportionate” is a useful or necessary addition to this clause.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
Should I wind up on this group?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I just need to finish. Noble Lords come at me from all directions, which is perfectly fine, but I need to finish the group.
I turn next to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, with the idea of mentors. I can see the point she is making, the strength of the argument and all those things, but it might be that this amendment overlooks what we have at the moment: the probation officer manager in the prison, who is responsible for that prisoner; the key worker in the prison, who is also responsible for that prisoner; and the community offender manager, who will look after that prisoner in the community. In addition, we already have in the prison all kinds of other support services, including the chaplains mentioned a moment ago by the right reverend Prelate.
The Government are hesitating about the wisdom of introducing yet another person into this already comprehensive structure—or what the Government believe is a comprehensive structure—by way of a statutory provision for mentors. That is not to say that there could not be better organisation of voluntary agencies or, despite what I have said, some other route to consider whether there are ways of strengthening the support of prisoners on some non-statutory basis. However, in view of the present arrangements for the prison offender manager, the key worker and the community offender manager via the Probation Service, the Government are not yet persuaded that mentors would be a proper statutory route to go down. I am sorry I could not get closer to what the noble Baroness is driving at. I very much thank her for her suggestions. I am sure that her intervention puts the question on the radar and advances the debate, but that is the Government’s position.
Amendments 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, are directed at clarifying entitlements to aftercare and related issues. It is perfectly true that Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides that those who are entitled to that support should receive it, and the protection of mental health through the action plan is part of the action plan. There are further measures in that regard through the progression panels and the use of the psychology services.
People in prison are entitled to exactly the same range of health service care arrangements as people in the community, and there is a national partnership agreement with health and social care in England. I hope I am not seen as doing less than justice to these amendments, but the bottom line on this is that, through the action plan and other measures, there are wide-ranging efforts to support mental health aftercare and the mental health of prisoners. The Government are not yet persuaded that a statutory amendment to the Mental Health Act is required to advance that cause. On this, as in other contexts on this Bill, the Government are, of course, still in listening mode but, at the moment at least, we are unpersuaded that this is a proper way forward.
I hope that I have dealt, if not necessarily to noble Lords’ satisfaction, as best I can with the points made. I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this constructive, powerful and moving debate, on all sides. Some heartfelt comments have been made. I could not begin to summarise them without detracting from their force. I thank all your Lordships for this.
I have written down some positive points, including some phrases shared by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, all on the same side. One was “unity of purpose”. That is encouraging. I think I even heard the Minister say “within this family”, which is a lovely phrase to use in debating something as emotive as this.
We have a unique opportunity. These occasions to make a difference for this cohort of prisoners, who have been treated so unfairly, do not come up very often. I urge the Minister to keep an open mind on everything that has been said and on these amendments, all of which would improve the position of IPP prisoners. I am very grateful to him, and encouraged by his reaction to my amendments. I urge him to have that same openness of spirit and to be bold for the sake of this group of prisoners, who have been treated so unfairly over the years. That injustice is continuing. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about light at the end of the tunnel. That is what this suite of amendments is about for a cohort of young people who, at the moment, will not be seeing a light at the end of that tunnel. I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for speaking with such clarity about what these amendments are about, and other noble Lords who have described what this must feel like for a young person and pointed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, did, to some of the remedies that these three amendments offer to the Minister and the Government. I hope that they take them up and carry them through.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for all the points made on this part of the Bill. I shall take it first in the general and then the particular. In the general, these amendments quite rightly put on the radar, the horizon and public consciousness the importance of dealing with prisoners who received their sentence when they were still under the age of 18. This is already a very important function that these amendments have performed. As for the question of the light at the end of the tunnel, I share the thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, were very pertinent as to what it feels like to be incarcerated in the dramatic circumstances that he related.
It is the Government’s view that these prisoners, among others, need to have light at the end of the tunnel. This is the whole purpose and thrust of the Government’s approach. In practical terms, as I understand it we have 32 prisoners in this position who have not been released, another 48 who have been recalled, and a hundred or so out in the community. These figures may not be exactly right; they are not quite the same as those given by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, although they are approximately the same. For the recalled cohort and for those in the community, the reduction in the licence period from 10 years to three will be significant and very much benefit those serving this DPP sentence. Against this background, the Government are not quite persuaded that these amendments would achieve our joint objective of providing this light at the end of the tunnel.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he comment on the point I was making about the aim of having these reviews written into the statute? Subsection (2) in the new clause set out in Amendment 162 says that they are taking place
“with a view to ensuring that all possible steps are taken to enable their safe release at the earliest possible time”.
That flags up, at the outset, exactly what these reviews are dealing with. I do not know whether it is already in the action plan that the Minister has been referring to, but is there some way of getting that purpose clearly identified, and of course communicating that purpose to the DPP prisoners themselves who are subject to the system, so that they know that that is the purpose for which these reviews are being conducted?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for that point. It is certainly something I will take away when we come to consider the Government’s position.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I apologise, because I know my noble and learned friend wants to complete his speech, but I ask this question simply because I failed to hear. The action plan has been spoken of a lot during the course of this evening. Is that an existing document, and is it published?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Yes, and yes.
On the basis that I accept, on behalf of the Government, the importance of this topic, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords in the Committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, not least for giving us an opportunity to thank, once more, the Prison Reform Trust, and I would add the Howard League for Penal Reform and UNGRIPP, in particular, who are the family members of these desperate people in many cases. I thank her for pointing out this issue of the window of opportunity for rehabilitation and seeing another possible way of life.
Hope springs eternal, and therefore we are particularly lucky to have “hope” in the form of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is so active in this Committee. Every point he made was quite hard, if I may say so, to resist. But my man of the match, I am afraid, was, none the less the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, because I feel that one of the reasons that we have not had a serious penal reform campaign in this country, possibly since the Victorian period, is because we have lost empathy for the prisoner. We have locked them away—out of sight, out of mind. They do not vote, et cetera: all these things that will set the alarm bells ringing at the Daily Mail, if anybody is up there. We have lost empathy for these people. They are not human anymore; they are prisoners; but in this group of amendments at least, we are talking about people who were children when they were given this sentence, and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, had sufficient empathy to compare “criminals” with his late father’s friend and a war hero is the kind of empathy that I rarely hear about any demonised group in our society, whether it is convicted people, refugees and asylum seekers or anyone else who is, for the moment, in a demonised category. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.
I am grateful, of course, to my noble friend Lady Thornton for the support of the Labour Front Bench. She of course was an Equality Minister in the not-too-distant past, and I hope that she will be one in the not-too-distant future, shortly, or in due course, or whatever these other phrases are that are occasionally—
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I do not wish her noble friend to place overreliance on the word “quite” in terms of statutory amendments. Statutory amendments are rather different from a proper approach in the action plan and putting that on a statutory basis.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, but my hope is not dashed, not least because my noble friend is a force of nature, as he has demonstrated throughout his career with the integrity that others have referred to in the way that he has conducted himself over this particular issue in recent times. I need to put on the record for the Committee that he feels particularly strongly about the injustice faced by this cohort. I repeat: every argument we have aired earlier this evening becomes turbocharged in relation to these people, who were children when they were placed under this sentence. But for the moment, at least, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for the force and sincerity with which she put forward her views, as indeed have other noble Lords who have supported Amendment 167, which would go down the road of the resentencing exercise that we have been discussing.
In setting out the Government’s position, I find it hard to improve on the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just made. This is a situation where we are dealing with the potential release of IPP offenders, who have committed mostly very serious sexual or violent offences. One would be overriding the decisions that the Parole Board has already taken, in most cases on multiple occasions, and would be putting the judge in the most difficult position.
Indeed, it is not a resentencing exercise in any normal sense of the word because, in most cases, the tariff has already expired. It is essentially a question of trying to do something different, dressed up as a resentencing exercise, to release persons who have already been held, on many occasions, to be unsafe to release. It is very difficult for the Government to go down that road. Again, there is a real risk, if one does go on that road, of wrongly raising the hopes of those who have put their faith in what is, in the Government’s view, not an appropriate way forward.
I want to add just one or two points. First, as the Committee is aware, I have on previous occasions—and I will do so on future occasions—emphasised the pressures we have at the moment on the prison population. The Government would be only too pleased to create further space in the prison population, or to relieve those pressures by releasing certain prisoners, but we have to consider the interests of public protection. It is not a question of being frightened of the media or of cowering in fear of the Daily Mail; it is a question of the protection of the public.
Any responsible Government would have to think very hard before a process that would allow the release, or that was envisaged to achieve the release—perhaps even unlicensed, without supervision—of large numbers of people in this position. I fully accept that the situation is regrettable. I accept the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that it is very regrettable that the whole thing arose in the first place. Terrible things may well have been happening back in 2005, but we are where we are. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord wants to intervene.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I have made my point; I will not reprise it again. The fallacy in both the Minister’s arguments is that he says they are dangerous, but actually the state has helped make them dangerous, if they are dangerous, by acting in the way in which it has. Normally, someone who has made a mistake accepts it and bears the consequences. I am not going to say any more because I will not persuade the Minister otherwise.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, from the point of view of the Government, I am not in a position to accept the premise advanced by the noble and learned Lord. I hear what he says. I do not accept, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, implied at one stage, that there is anything wrong with the Parole Board processes. I think I heard the word “dodgy” at one point, but I may have misheard. The Parole Board is a body that the Government have complete confidence in in this respect. This exercise should remain with the Parole Board.
I will say again: can we please distinguish between the problem of the released cohort and the problem of the never released cohort? We seem to drift from one to the other a lot of the time. Cases such as those of Matthew Price and, I think, the case of David Parker, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, are cases where people have been recalled after having been in the community for many years. That will no longer happen. The question of the recall is very largely dealt with, or very substantially improved, by the Government’s amendments in this Bill. What we are dealing with primarily is the never—not yet—released cohort.
I say again, in the light of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s remarks about the expected possible reaction of those who are still in prison and how to be particularly vigilant in supporting IPP prisoners in the light of these debates and related points, that the action plan is intended to give people hope. It is focused on their future to prepare them progressively with a sentence plan, the psychology services support, and a multidisciplinary progression panel towards eventual release. I think he would accept, even now, that the action plan has made a difference already; I see him nodding. We will take that forward and, as I say, it may well be the case the Government will be in a position to propose to your Lordships that the idea of an action plan should have a statutory basis, that the broad terms of its content should be set out and that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament so that—whatever Government comes into power—we can continue on the process that we have already started. The resentencing exercise is not, in the Government’s view, the way to go.
On that basis, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Attlee would not arise because we are not going down that road. I do not think I need to say anything further about them, save to remark that what is being proposed would impose a very significant burden on our existing probation services. For that reason as well, one would have to reflect very seriously before going down that route. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment on this point.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, my amendment was a very fine amendment, but my noble and learned friend the Minister has addressed it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, and we will hear what the noble Baroness has to say.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with all the speakers so far. My concern is that Clauses 49 to 51 may be another way for the former Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, to dilute the human rights framework through the back door.
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the convention on human rights as far as is possible. The clauses would disapply Section 3 to prisoners as a group when it comes to legislation about their release. Several groups have rightly raised concerns about that.
I, too, cite the Prison Reform Trust, which said:
“The introduction of specific carve-outs from human rights for people given custodial sentences contradicts one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights—their universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human. Moreover, it is precisely in custodial institutions like prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because individuals are under the control of the state”.
In written evidence to the JSC, the Bar Council stated:
“There is no evidence of any systemic impairment due to the HRA of the Parole Board’s ability to make high-quality, safe, decisions about prisoners—no statistical analysis of recidivism/public safety concerns from prisoners released due to interpretation of legislation in line with Convention principles”.
In his speech at Second Reading in the other place, the chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill, said:
“Whatever one’s view of the Human Rights Act, there is no evidence that this is a problem in such cases. In fact, the evidence we heard from practitioners, from both sides, is that it can be helpful to have to have regard to section 3 in these hearings. These clauses seem to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and I wonder whether we really need them. It is perfectly possible to have a robust system that still complies with section 3. This is a needless distraction that sends the wrong signal about a certain desire to pick unnecessary fights, which I know is not the current Secretary of State’s approach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 604.]
I really could not have put it any better, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships know, this group is a stand part challenge to Clauses 49 to 52 of the Bill, which, in essence, disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to prisoner release legislation. The issue before us is, as much as anything, to do with the constitutional balance between Parliament and the courts. It is not about disapplying the Human Rights Act; it is about who does what. What do the courts do and what does Parliament do? That is the issue.
The provisions with which we are concerned include the new release test for releasing prisoners on licence—namely, the public protection test set out in Clauses 41 and 42, which make it abundantly clear that the protection of the public is the overriding factor. The Human Rights Act is also disapplied in relation to the referral mechanism, referring the most serious release decisions by the Parole Board to a court—currently the Upper Tribunal—and to other prison release decisions. As far as I am aware, no amendment has been tabled in this House objecting to the principle of the new public protection test, nor to the proposed referral mechanism—though there is an argument about which court it should go to—nor to the principle of our IPP reforms, except that it is argued that we should go further. Parliament has plainly indicated what it is trying to achieve.
Against this background, where exactly does Section 3 of the Human Rights Act fit in? Lest any misunderstanding persist—which it seems to do—my first point is that nothing in these clauses removes or limits any convention rights enjoyed by any prisoners, or anyone else for that matter, by virtue of Section 1 of the Human Rights Act or under the convention. A breach of human rights may still be pleaded before any domestic court or in Strasbourg in the usual way, whether it be the right to liberty, family life or any other right protected by the convention. Clauses 49 to 51 do not alter or detract from those rights in any way.
Even if—which I do not for one moment believe—anything in the legislation from which Section 3 has been disapplied were held by a higher court to be incompatible with the convention rights, in such a hypothetical case it would be for the court to make a declaration of incompatibility. Then, in accordance with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, it would be for Parliament to decide what to do—whether to amend the legislation and, if so, in what way. In other words, it is the job of Parliament to make challenged legislation compatible with the convention. It is Parliament’s legislation; it is for Parliament to fix it, and it is the constitutional responsibility of everyone in either House to find a legislative solution.
The problem with Section 3 is that it gives finding the legislative solution to somebody else altogether—namely the court. This is Parliament’s legislation and not the courts’. That was why I said at Second Reading that Section 3 of the HRA is, in essence, a procedural and interpretive provision that requires legislation to be given effect to in a way which is compatible with convention rights. Those words “given effect” have led, in certain circumstances, to the court reading in or reading down words into the legislation that Parliament has passed. In other words, the court is empowered under Section 3 to add to or subtract from what Parliament originally intended. This has been a difficult section to apply. It has required courts to depart from Parliament’s intention and, if I may say so, to stray into the legislative realm.
These amendments directly raise the proper balance between the courts and Parliament when it comes to legislative matters. That issue was highlighted in the 2021 Independent Human Rights Act Review. It was discussed over 80 pages, toing and froing on all sorts of points and suggesting numerous recommendations and amendments, with the majority of the panel finally recommending a series of reforms to Sections 2 and 3.
On the Government’s position that Section 3 is a most unusual power in this respect, I can do no better than refer your Lordships to the trenchant criticism of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act on constitutional grounds by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, King’s Counsel, present in this Chamber, in his evidence to that 2021 review. His basic point was that it is not the function of the courts to legislate; it is the function of Parliament. Against that background, in the present context, the Government’s position is that, on an issue of importance, such as public protection and prisoner release, it is for Parliament to determine what the test should be.
In the unlikely event of any of those provisions being disapplied, and a declaration being made under Section 4, again, it is for this House and the other place to put it right and not to delegate, abdicate or push away that responsibility on to the courts. That is the Government’s position and it is essentially a question of the constitutional balance between what we do and what somebody else does—in other words, the courts. That is essentially the background to these amendments.
Clause 52 sets out the approach a court should take if there is a challenge on human rights grounds regarding the release of a prisoner. I do not accept the characterisation by the noble Lord, Lord German, that the wording of Clause 52 is effectively saying that public protection is an exclusive requirement; it simply says that that is a requirement to which weight should be given. No doubt, the courts are perfectly capable of arriving at a sensible interpretation of the provision, but the Government’s view is that the importance of public protection is a matter that Parliament can rightly draw to the court’s attention as something to which weight should be given. I will just add that that requirement does not apply to the so-called non-derogable rights under the convention, which are: Article 2, the right to life; Article 3, the prohibition of torture; Article 4, the prohibition of slavery, and Article 7, no punishment without law.
The courts already consider risk to the public. The Bill simply ensures that weight is properly given to that consideration. The essential point is that on these matters, in this context, it is not for someone else to be reading in or reading down what your Lordships decide; it is for your Lordships and for Members of the other House to put matters right.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, having heard that explanation, on the first part I suspect that this will have to come back when we have an array of former judges of all sorts in this House to test the position the Government have placed on this matter. To a lay person, it seems to be on a trail of chipping away Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, in particular. Therefore, I think this can wait for another day to have that legal learning that I think we will all need to take it on board.
In respect of the Minister’s second point, about weight, it would not be so bad if it were simply “weight”; it would not be quite so bad if it were “great weight”; but it is “the greatest possible weight” and the greatest possible weight to me means virtually everything you can possibly put into it. I will take a simple Welsh analogy. You have a scrum. You put the weight of everybody into it with the objective of pushing the other side off the ball so that you can take it yourselves. That is where you would apply “the greatest possible weight”. There might be a bit of pulling of hair and ears, and whatever else goes on inside a scrum—but I am not going to talk about that any more.
If you think about it, though, the words “the greatest possible weight” are pretty conclusive that what you must do is virtually everything that is in sight. So, I take on board the Minister’s view that the word “weight” is important, but I do not take on board the words “the greatest possible weight”. However, on the basis of the future legal discussion we are likely to have in this House, I beg leave to withdraw my objection to Clause 49 standing part.
Criminal Jurors
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the crucial importance of the role of jurors in delivering justice and the need to secure their well-being. The Government have no current plans to introduce a juror appreciation day, but we continue to commend the hard work of jury panels throughout the year and to explore ways of supporting those who are undertaking this very important civic duty.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am obviously disappointed by my noble and learned friend’s Answer. Other jurisdictions, such as Canada, have introduced such a week—not just a day. There is an increase in jurors speaking out after serving on some of our most notorious trials about the effect that jury service had on them, such as making them unwell. Can my noble and learned friend agree to have a call for evidence to understand what the extent of this issue is? Then there could be analysis of whether it is the type or length of case, or the way in which evidence is presented nowadays, with much more footage, rather than photographs, that is causing these issues that we can then assess.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I would like first, if I may, to thank my noble friend for raising this issue and for organising a recent stakeholder conference. The Government are aware of the question that she rightly raises, but are not, at present, planning for a call for evidence as such. We already have regular jury satisfaction surveys, which generally express high levels of jury satisfaction and a willingness to serve again. We do know that a minority of jurors suffer stress, and we are exploring options that we intend to test in the Crown Courts later this year and to issue further guidance to courts on the circumstances in which ad hoc support can be arranged.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, well with this campaign. Does the Minister, from his own vast experience, think that judges could take more responsibility, particularly in cases that have obviously affected the mental health of jurors, and also where judges can push against the law’s delay, which Shakespeare talked about 400 years ago and is still very much a factor in our legal system?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, speaking from the experience of a sometime, extreme lowly, recorder of the Crown Court, the first thing that one is taught as a criminal judge is to ensure the well-being of the jury. I am sure that all judges go out of their way to ensure that the jury is properly looked after—as do the court ushers and the jury bailiffs—and they are, generally speaking, warmly thanked for their participation. There will be occasions when further support is needed, and the Government are, as I said, planning trials and tests, later this year, to explore the options.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I ask a question as an even more lowly recorder than my noble and learned friend the Minister—albeit that he and I have not carried out that role for some many years. Can I suggest to him that there is a practical way in which juries can be better appreciated, despite the good work of the court staff and so forth? Their accommodation is, frankly, hopeless. They sit for long periods, having to concentrate, on uncomfortable benches. They retire to pretty low-grade rooms, and those who are in the jury-in-waiting are accommodated in fairly poor-quality accommodation. Could my noble and learned friend see if the department can improve the jury accommodation, not just in the modern courts—they are a bit better—but in some of the older and more dilapidated courts?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to report to the House that the present Lord Chancellor secured a major financial injection from the Treasury, specifically to improve the court estate—which, in some areas, has been a problem, as my noble and learned friend has rightly pointed out. I am sure that at least some of that money will, rightly, go on improving accommodation for the jury.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I was a juror about 35 years ago at the Old Bailey. It was a multiple rape case, and I can still remember the details and the name of the perpetrator. I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her pursuance of this issue. The Minister talked about ad hoc support for jurors. Can he be more specific about what his department is proposing to offer jurors?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think that this will be the subject of the test and trials later this year that I have just mentioned, but I shall give an example. Following the recent Letby trial and the tragic events at the Countess of Chester Hospital, the jurors in that case were offered support by a charity in Manchester called Victim Support, and I thank that charity for its offering in that respect. It was, specifically, a counselling service for those jurors. My understanding is that every member of the jury was offered it, but that the take-up was very low.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a massive increase in financial crime. What are the Government doing to make sure that jurors—and, indeed, judges—have the required skills to deal with such cases?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in financial crime, the ultimate question is, normally, whether the defendants have acted honestly or not. Experience suggests—and my own experience suggests—that jurors are perfectly capable of determining whether someone has acted honestly or not, despite the financial complexity of some of these trials.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we are all extremely grateful for the task that jurors perform extremely conscientiously, but there is a very significant backlog in the Crown Courts at the moment of people awaiting trial by jury. Have the Government considered the possibility of allowing a defendant to elect to be tried either by a judge—or by a judge and two magistrates—if he or she wants to do so? Further to what the noble Lord, Lord Watts, asked, is it not the case that, as long ago as about 50 years ago, Lord Roskill recommended the possibility of trial by judge alone in difficult and complex financial cases? Is that a matter that the Government are thinking about further?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
To the last part of that question, as I have just said, the Government are extremely reluctant to qualify in any way the right of all citizens to be tried by a peer group of 12 good and true, whatever their background or walk of life, so the answer to the Roskill suggestion is no. As to the possibility of the option of being tried by a jury, a judge alone or a judge and two assessors, for example, that is not in contemplation by this Government for the same reason.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord opposite raised the question of accommodation for jurors in circumstances in which they operate within the courts. What consideration is being given to the position of witnesses, some of whom may be traumatised by what they are being required to do, or traumatised by other witnesses in the case? Is there sufficient being done to ensure that they have somewhere quiet, safe and secure where they feel they can wait to be called in evidence?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very good point. Witnesses obviously form an essential part of the system. I can tell your Lordships that the witness support service has made great strides in recent years in making sure that witnesses are properly looked after and briefed as to what to expect. It is a completely different situation from what it was 20 or 30 years ago.